I'd like to know what he values everyone else's BTC at...

Over what period of time did you accrue those stats?

I think we can do better than that.

With BTC, I can give you a few models which remove the need for checkout lines, checkout counters, and even cashiers, and only require a couple security personnel at the doors

Lmfao.

Sorry, mods, this just deserves an 'Lmfao,' and that's all.

Edit:  And sorry, SilverWallets

Technically (though not psychologically), price has absolutely nothing to do with market instability. There is absolutely no technical reason, and not even many good psychological ones, why Bitcoin can't fall to $20 and stay there.  If you look first at price to determine the strength of the market, you're doing it wrong.  Price is *only* reflective of market strength/weakness when explained by mediating variables.

Edit:  I wouldn't count on $20 anytime soon, though 

Didn't Bank of America estimate FMV to be around $1300 a year ago?

Yeah and September 11, 2001 wasn't significant for the world in any way.

Edit:  I see above you mention to someone else that this was supposed to be sarcastic, but I really didn't pick up on that at all the first time around, or even now to be honest.

Are you using the most updated version?

I think it's asinine to use the Starbucks example when a grocery store checkout line is a more Universal scenario.  The products aren't paid for until after they are scanned and a final price is reached.  Now you have all those people waiting in line...

And, just because the goal isn't to achieve a 0% risk currency due to near-impossibility doesn't mean that decreasing risk isn't important whatsoever, or that we shouldn't consider the indirect implications of slower transactions.  For example, more time in the checkout line --> fewer customers overall --> less revenue generated --> smaller profit margin. 

My biggest gripe with these blanket assumptions about BTC's technical specs is that people constantly forget the psychological implications. If you make a decision that even affects 2-3% of a company's consumer base, all of a sudden you're playing roulette with future revenue.

Sometimes you need to lose yourself to find yourself.  Sometimes it's better to give than to receive.  Sometimes it's not the destination that matters, but the journey.

See?  I can be super duper wise, too.  But only as long as I continue to order take-out from Panda Express.

Are you even responding to my post?  I can't even tell because every word here is so vague, arbitrary, and generally void of any practical utility or value that they all could've been stated independent of my post (which you've done over and over, anyway).

Since I'm stupid and obviously can't understand the wisdom you present, would you honor me by explaining in more detail how your statements directly connect to the post I made so that I can understand why they are relevant?  For example, when you say, "You don't have to die to find heaven," which part of my post was that in response to?  Or, can you tell me what I'm missing that causes me not to see the big picture? 

At this point, I'm not really expecting much.  But hey, maybe you'll surprise me.

About the same 

To respond to bolded selections, in order:

1) If you think about it, it's in no way sound to conclude that a limited supply means BTC can only go up in value forever.   Aside from the fact that a word-for-word, direct interpretation of what you suggest would imply that sell orders could never be executed, the market has fallen <50% over the past year.  Limited supply does not in any way necessitate demand.

2) BTC *could* provide new economic access to billions of people who do not currently have it, but with an open-source network infrastructure, it seems reasonable to estimate that a superior alternative might fill that niche instead.

3) The majority of people, even with an intent to use BTC, would not yet be able to rest easy with BTC because very few would be knowledgeable and disciplined enough to store their BTC in a way that removes any risk of online theft.  This is a chicken-and-egg problem though, and as time goes on I certainly expect to see near-idiot-proof wallet, storage, and exchange solutions be made easily available.

4) Aside from retouching upon the "limited supply does not necessitate demand" idea, it's unknown to what extent knowledge of the next subsidy halving is presently factored into the price.

5) People won't use BTC as a hedge if it remains highly volatile, though at the level of mass adoption volatility should theoretically be limited.  If economies immediately began dropping like flies, nobody is going to be rushing into BTC...at least not presently.

Overall, I think the first-mover advantage is hugely significant for BTC, and there's no question that business and infrastructure funding and development has never been higher.  Accordingly, I'm optimistic on BTC's future, but I wouldn't put a guarantee on it.  To me, it seems ridiculous to think BTC is the best conceived currency when, aside from popularity and network size, there already exists a handful of currencies that are superior alternatives.  However, I get preoccupied a lot by wondering if Bitcoin is simply 'good enough.'

I actually completely agree with dank inasmuch as attempting to rule out philosophical arguments from a debate makes it completely pointless.

But, Dank, you are the king of grasping at straws (which happens every time we say something and you turn it into some personal tale of being persecuted for sharing your spiritual beliefs on this forum).   You rarely directly answer the questions that are asked of you.  

Also, beware of 'concept extension" which occurs when you start applying philosophical concepts where they have no business being applied in an attempt to explain everything.  In doing so, you completely dilute the strengths of those same concepts when applied in a context to which they are actually relevant.  That may sound confusing, but you can look to other disciplines to see where this becomes a problem, such as in the field of social work in which literally every societal or economic issue can be explained away in terms of 'oppression' or some other popular buzz word.  You're no different when you say things like "I am everything" and then use that principle as a starting point to attempt to explain away every possible issue or situation that arises.  Indeed, it may be a great starting point for many debate topics, but not this one.  Nobody is here to debate your philosophical beliefs, we simply want you to directly ask the questions asked of you in a format that you suggested in the OP.

If this was a philosophy or spiritual forum, then that would be great.  But you generally make only two kinds of threads here: 1) Talking about your beliefs, and 2) asking for loans.  When those are your primary motives for posting on a *Bitcoin* forum, something is obviously suspect to further inquiry.  There are much better audiences for you to preach to, so that leads me to believe that either you're unwise for selecting and persisting upon this audience, or preaching simply isn't your number one motive here (but money is).

Go ahead and use your philosophical arguments, but respond *directly* to the questions asked of you.  Otherwise, it confuses us when you say you want to debate but keep on parroting the same spiritual motives like a broken record.  Every thread of yours turns into The Dank Show and you see it as an opportunity to preach like a baptist minister.  Don't give dodgy responses.  If you're not sure what those are, then let me suggest paying attention to how many times you respond to questions about your debt to Squall with some statement about either the nature of the self or of the Universe, or some statement about your political or moral viewpoint.  Nobody will *ever* (ever!) believe that somehow not repaying Squall and focusing on a life of preaching, guitar playing, crop sowing, and raising chickens will auspiciously provide more benefit to the Universe.  If you were to magically (for you, perhaps more magical than levitating) change, address the questions asked of you directly, and make repaying your debt to squall your primary concern, I bet that would shock more people here than your nuggets of wisdom, and probably even re-instill within them some faith in humanity.

Creating a new payment plan doesn't really do any good when he refuses to get a job.

He doesn't want to support the "machine" in any way and thinks that playing his guitar and raising chickens for money will totally absolve him from doing so, all the while while failing to realize that he already supports it through food, drug, and motorcycle-related purchases, sales tax, etc.  He already gets money from somewhere, but he dances around this issue when confronted and he's already made it clear that repaying his debts aren't his first priority.

*What* you're telling us isn't the issue because we already have that accessible through your previous posts.  I'm talking about *why* you've chosen this approach to saving the world and I'm calling BS on it.


Egocentrism.  That's the context you've created to justify your behavior, but you refuse to accept the validity of the context everyone else perceives.  To you, it's about adhering to some idyllic, postconventional moral view.  To us, we're trying to slap you back into *this* reality and tell you that your approach is insanely impractical.  To you, this world is forced upon you and you are a victim from the day you were born.  To us, while we recognize the depth of corruption which can be found almost anywhere you look for it, we also recognize that we are products of our environment with many positive qualities and characteristics, and so there is as much to honor as to abhor.  

To directly answer your question, no, it's not greedy because it's simply unfair to call it "forcing law and slavery onto [you]."  That is the context you have chosen, and if you want to live your like feeling like a victim then you are welcome to do so.  I think it might be worth reflecting upon the idea that those to whom you preach about liberation probably feel more free than you do.


I would never say that.  More like, "So you want to sh*t on the contributions of your peers by effectively calling all of us evil for working to support an "evil" machine of corruption, something that you said you would not do for yourself for moral reasons, and then have the nerve to post threads asking us to lend you our spoils?"  


Less talk, more doing.


Dank, it's not profound what you said.    All a person has to do is study something like the quantum to understand that reality is stranger than fiction.  But -- and here's the kicker -- we even have loads of data about quantum reality based upon actual scientific experiments.  This means that we can literally take an uneducated person with a classical view of the world, show him the results of such an experiment, and blow his mind.  And, with the millions of people living today who already have been exposed to this knowledge, why do you suppose they aren't preaching to everyone about how the Universe is so much more than what it appears to be?  It's simple -- it has no practical significance right now.  You're banging your head into a brick wall for no good practical reason.  Now, if you can take a statement like "the Universe is you," model it, and then identify and model some practical use for it, then that would be fantastic.   But get a job first.


I'm not getting mad at the messenger, I'm telling him that he sucks at being a messenger.  You either 1) Don't know what you claim to know because you contradict yourself like no tomorrow by playing both sides of the fence whenever it's convenient for you, or 2) you do know what you claim to know but suck at expressing it in a way that's meaningful to others, also because you contradict yourself like no tomorrow.


I didn't say you exaggerate the depth of reality, I said you exaggerate the importance of your actions and your perspective.

I'm glad you brought up the "ripple" analogy, because this is a case-in-point example of you conveniently dancing on whatever side of the fence is most practical for you.    The Butterfly Effect is what we call a mathematically uncertain theory.  It's uncertain not because it isn't true, but because it's opposing theory (i.e. that there is no significant Butterfly Effect) is also true, i.e. both are equally valid depending on the perspective you take.  For example, I can claim that I'm typing this post to you simply because I wanted to, and also because of my interdependence with the lighting generated from the storm cloud on Planet Flafluga.    

In your case, Dank, the rippling of your behavior only applies to the things you want to do but haven't done yet.  You believe that your music festival and your posts here and your motorcycle exhibitions and your drug experiences will ripple positive vibes throughout the Universe, thereby cleansing everything.   But, the ripple analogy goes out the window anytime it has to do with getting a job or repaying your debts.  You don't, for example, believe that continuing with your current behavior could send a rippling effect through the Universe, making everyone less likely to honor their obligations, less trustworthy, more lazy, more stubborn, etc.  You also don't believe that getting a job and repaying your debt would send a rippling effect making everyone more likely to be hard-working, practical, resourceful, etc.


The epitome of egocentrism.  You said it, "What matters [to you] is [you] believed..." and I don't even need to finish it.  What matters to you is your belief.  Everyone else is wrong, you have all the answers, and so right off the bat you've made it a priori impossible to argue with you.


In your mind = egocentrism.  In my mind, it was stupid.  If honest, you would only do such a thing if you believed that the potential value of your sacrifice is greater than the value of your own life.  Your parents would disagree.  I would also disagree because you overestimate the potential value of your sacrifice to the point of delusion.


Then you might want to learn from the ones who were/are successfully able to communicate what they know.


No, you're divulging inconsistent generalities (i.e. inconsistent in terms of what you say versus what it implies for your own behavior).

Two serious questions 1) Do you believe that every other person who has made similar claims to you, and who may or may not have had psychiatric diagnoses or hospital stays, is genuine (or, conversely, do you believe that there are no insane people who make these claims)?  And, 2) If not, what do you think separates you from these other people (i.e. why are they insane and you're not)?


A shill for *who*?  You know I'm not stupid enough to believe that Vod's alleged wealth is the primary reason he calls you out repeatedly.  Egocentrism at it's finest.  All the *elitists* are after you!


I run a Federal financial assistance program designed to move nursing home residents with a history of SMI (serious mental illness) into apartments in the surrounding community.  Clients who are referred and are assessed at a high-enough level of functioning are provided with rent subsidies as well as funding for furniture and other household items.  The program sees a >80% success rate (where success is defined by >1 year residing in the community without reinstitutionalization).  The initiative provides better health care at a reduced cost and enables minority citizens a chance at living in the least-restrictive environment possible.

The Federal Government runs all types of these sort of initiatives.  Why aren't you acknowledging and talking about these, too?  


I bet you can't model that on a sheet of paper (i.e. the relationship between both physical and *other* reality, the relationship between you and others like vod, and the relationship between you and God, into one nice, consistent model).  If you can I'd be *very* interested.  If you can't, you probably don't know what you just said.


Holy egocentrism!  I mean I'm all about spreading positive vibes and the Butterfly Effect and all that jazz, but know your limits!  


Here's more of your egocentrism, though in this case it's more of a Messiah Complex.  It's also an example of another *extreme* contradiction.  In a prior post you were calling for Vod to reply without judgment and yet your entire stated purpose follows your judgment of literally the entire Universe.


It's not about sharing your convictions or beliefs.  Here you go conjuring up a context of victimization.  

You should say sorry to yourself for not being good at adapting.  If you can't be a cog in a machine, we'll replace you for a good cog so that the machine *works*.  If you think you can just let the machine break all of a sudden without dire consequences, you're insanely naive.


Lol Totally sounds like the life of a Universe-saver to me.  We can save the Universe with a 24/7 hoe-down.


Sure, just go back and read all our conversations.

I really like your distinction about factoring future developments into the price.  Out of curiosity, could you provide any more explanation as to how you arrived specifically at a $20-50 range?

Actually, he's correct.  He's too greedy to put his million man music festival on hold for a while and work.  I can't think of anything much greedier than to ask all of society to change exactly the way he wishes.

I've had a fair number of personal communications with Dank, including several via PM.  We're not strangers.  I was actually empathizing with him, though I won't deny some added emotional emphasis which is absolutely my personal bias.  Also, appeal to popularity I'll concede, but that doesn't make the point itself invalid.  The emotional appeal works in this case because it's demonstrating the significance of others' viewpoints contrary to Dank's egocentrism.

Fair critique.  Also, hereinbefore?  That's acceptable?  Neato

I quoted egocentrism for you because I believe it would be applicable to the majority of your posts, and not just this one.  For the record, Vod's comments in your threads do not instill fear in me whatsoever, and I'm not sure why you think they should.  But, maybe that's because you're egocentric and you're not taking into account (see the quoted definition again) other "relevant information," which is basically most of what everyone else is trying to say to you.

You can remind me that you laid in a ditch to take a bullet to demonstrate the corruption in society, and I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and accept the premise that you did.  However, you just demonstrated exactly why you are egocentric.  You actually believe that you, Dank, can perform such an action and that it should have some uber-significant impact on society such that everyone will have some kind of moment of enlightenment and change for the better.  The "egocentric" part is that you over-exaggerate the importance of your actions relevant to everything and everyone else.  It's the same mentality that makes you think that you aren't endangering people by "flying" 100+ mph in and out of traffic on your motorcycle.  What you fail to realize is that you are not the center of the Universe, and not everyone (and, in truth, hardly anyone) is paying attention to what you are doing at all times.

If the Hell's Angels would have killed you, the world would've kept on spinning and we would be where we are right now, except with one extra, needless death.   That would have been a really, REALLY stupid, ill-conceived means of saving the world and bringing peace to others.  You should know that there's nothing logical about an extra death leading to peace.  You simply ignore the countless times you contradict your own logic and think that some unique acid trip experience allows you to pull all sorts of mental gymnastics to reconcile those contradictions, and even reconcile outright fallacies.

Dank, my honest suspicion is the following:  I think the crux of your problem is that, in truth, there actually is a fine line between genius and insanity, but you can't see it and you don't actually know which side you're really on.  I also think that you legitimately have a good heart and that you mean well, and I even think that you mostly believe all of the things you say.  Furthermore -- and this is where things get dangerous -- I even think there's a lot of truth within your overarching spiritual message that you try to spread, and I think you probably have acquired some genuine, intuitive insight into the nature of reality based upon your wide range of experiences.  I will readily concede that nobody can take those experiences away from you.

But, there are two major reasons why I think you've fallen by the wayside: 1) You're a contrarian, and 2) You make the false conclusion that, because you've had these unique experiences, this somehow makes you the de facto authoritative expert.  And, unfortunately, without a formal educational background, you criss-cross your logic without even being aware of it.  The inevitable result of someone who is a contrarian and thinks they are privileged enough to be the only one with all the answers is stubborn blame.  And so you do; you blame society for not providing you, the privileged one, with your own individualized platform to stand on and share your wisdom.  You also blame Vod for "shilling" for...what...evil?  (Seriously, who would he be shilling for, Satan?).  But you have yet to provide one good reason for why you think it is that, somehow, millions of other people including Vod, myself, and other posters are able to provide for ourselves to pursue our own ambitions but that you are unable to.  Usually, at this point you defer to morality and claim that doing any kind of work means that you are supporting a corrupt, evil system.  This is completely unsound BS and you know it.  It's a cop out, it's childish, and that's what I, Vod, and so many others in these threads abhor.  We are ALL living under these same contexts and you're the only one whining.

Also, with direct regards to your quarrel with Vod, your criss-crossed logic would suggest that you are Vod, so maybe you should resolve the issue with yourself.  How about them apples?

Keep in mind and remember that I have more than a decade of learning of East Asian religious traditions, philosophy and metaphysics, and experience with meditation, and even share some of your more taboo experiences.  I even have a copy of Initiation into Hermetics by Franz Bardon.  I've spent my fair share of time walking the crazy/genius line.  In reality, I'm neither.  And neither are you, though you've been   toeing crazy a little (way) too much in my opinion.