Great example, considering the crew and passengers of the hijacked planes on 9/11 were disarmed.

In fact, the Federal Flight Deck Officer program was launched after 9/11 which allows eligible crew members to carry firearms to prevent such an attack from occurring in the future.

We can only speculate what would have happened if any of the crew or passengers were armed on that day, but I imagine that those planes wouldn't have been flown into the WTC buildings, at the very least.

I don't get your point

We have a starting price of 12 dollars in November, 2012, when the mining reward had been halved from 50 to 25 BTC. The price in July, 2016, at the next halving, was, according to you, 675 dollars per coin, with the rise being 675-12=663 dollars. We assume that the halving was cancelled in November, 2012, and the reward had been left intact (i.e. the same 50 BTC). Since we also assume that all things remain the same between these two dates (apart from the reward itself), the supply of coins would have been twice as much. Consequently, that allows us to assume that the price change within this time span would be half as much, i.e. 663/2=331.5 dollars. If we add this change to the starting price, we will get 343.5 dollars per coin in July, 2016

That would have been the price at the moment when the last bitcoin had been mined, namely, in July 2016. I guess I know what you are going to say next, i.e. how the price could have grown from 343.5 dollars to over 700 dollars in just half a year (from July through December 2016). The answer is pretty simple, and in fact I have already answered it in one of my previous posts. The price would have been surging because there would be no more bitcoins mined after July, 2016, just like it would have been lagging behind before that date simply because of the reward being twice as high its real value...

If you don't understand something, maybe, it is better to ask, after all?

That would be the price in November, 2012 if all coins had been mined by then. But today is December, 2016 (if you have somehow forgotten it). You can't just take and throw away all the demand that has piled up since then, and which we assumed to be the same as it has been through the whole time span of 4 years (and don't forget that the elasticity of price is assumed to be constant too)...

As you can see, your reasoning is not sustainable

Therefore, it would equal 12+(675-12)/2=~343.5 dollars per coin...

Since by July 2016 all coins should have been mined (remember the reward halving would remain the same after November, 2012), no new coins would be entering the market. But as we assumed that the demand remains the same, right now we would have the price equal to the current price multiplied by the number of coins mined by now and divided by the total number of coins. If we take the current price at ~$950 and the number of coins already mined ~16M, we will get the price equal to 950*16/21=~$723 if all coins had been mined by July, which is roughly three fourths (950*3/4=712.5). Just in case, you have yet to explain what is your logic behind claiming that the price would be a few orders of magnitude lower than it is today...

You should understand that just stating or asserting something will not suffice, no matter how loud you voice your claims

To say it is free, doesn't make it free. Transit workers still get paid.

damn, i read thru so many altcoin announcement

ANN, i always see this when new project announcement launch.

So what is ANN? announcement? A New Noice? Share your knowledge!

Yes.


Yes, plus in the second round at least, you get 0.1 GB for each 1 GB in your byteball linked addresses.


Yes it is, just link BTC and/or BB addresses and you're good to go, I think one of the reasons why the distribution rules were changed is to enable byteball to get more exposure and attract more linkers.

If we take 2012 as a starting point (namely, when the halving occurred, I don't know the exact date), we would have had 50 bitcoins as a mining reward instead of 25. If we assume that the only supply of coins to the market is through mining, it would basically mean (given constant elasticity of price) that by July, 2016, we would have had Bitcoin price at half as much of what it was in reality at the time. But in July all coins would have been mined if I'm not mistaken (i.e. all 21M). Since then there would no supply of new coins to the market altogether, and the price would most likely be where I estimated, i.e. at three fourths of its current value...

And where did you see magnitudes lower here?

OKCoin ... 20x Hebel 

You can sell any time that you like.  It depends upon how apportioned you are.  If you are 100% BTC, then maybe you should sell a bit.  If you are only 1% BTC, then maybe it is a decent time to buy some, and figure out a longer term plan rather than asking on the interwebs about what to do about your personal bitcoin allocation situation.

First of all, the most fertile lands lying in the lowlands will be swept by the sea, as the polar ice caps melt. Permafrost in Canada and Russia will melt, making these areas uninhabitable. In the end, the total land available will be reduced by more than 50%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_Town_Center_shooting

This one wasn't covered much...didn't help 'advance the narrative' I suppose.  Might be one of the few which wasn't a staged psy-op even.  Once or twice a year there probably is an genuine organic-ish crack-pot who goes on a rampage.

Rubbish. Are you claiming that 300,000 people died in Nagasaki and Hiroshima from carpet bombing using conventional weapons? Millions of bombs might have been needed to kill that many through carpet bombing.

OK.. let's take the American budget as an example. Here:



As you can see, defense and veterans affairs make up 20% of the total spending. Treasury amounts for another 14%.