There are a few reasons I can think of that might help bitcoin on another moonshot.
1. Supply will half in next couple of months
2. Investors from falling stock markets looking for new investments.
3. Negative interest rates and capital controls imposed by banks on the fiat system.
4. Some kind of debt default or bankruptcy causing another global crisis
+1 People who fail to understand these points are pretty short-sighted. But most people are, and some even call normality a virtue, although it is actually a sign of mental degeneration. Some poster attempted to say something as laughable as halving - it applies only to the coins not yet mined. There are actually enough coins already in circulation to keep the price surpressed arbitrary long. Halving will fuel some growth, but it shouldn't bring us beyond $500-600. Couldn't be more wrong, did you even read the topic? USB-S posted a link to answer this one: 3 Signs the Demand for Bitcoins is GrowingWhen you consider that 3600 new bitcoins are created daily (with that number dropping to 1800 by mid-2016) then Bitcoin’s price just holding steady means that buyers are absorbing thousands of coins daily at or near the market price. In fact, Bitcoin’s market cap, a measure of price multiplied by existent coins, is steadily rising even during spells when price remains as idle as a painted quote upon a painted ticker. edit: for illustration, here's the chart of bitcoin's market cap, as you can see, it is steadily rising even though the price is the same. now add halving to the equation and you will get a big phat rally  edit2: also this:  |
|
|
|
Why stop at 5.000$ each btc?
I am waiting 100.000 $ and more!
No one said it would stop there. Just a place where to consolidate for a while. |
|
|
|
Soon? How soon? For some people, soon is in 10 years.
I believe you are correct that the market cap will grow this year, however my prediction is a bit lower. Check my thread in my signature. I think the next bubble will get us close to $2k.
I have bet 0.17 BTC that Bitcoin will see a new ATH this year, so I would say if it's going to happen then this year is the perfect year for it to happen. Your prediction of $2k is good but you must account for the bubble factor (panic buying once BTC goes over 1k again). If you consider the bubble factor it is easy to see 5k prices but it is damn obvious that the bubble will collapse and we will consolidate between 2-3k. Check my thread. I am well aware of the impact of panic buying. I call these high magnitude bull markets in my thread. They seem to follow a ratio though and my guess is around $2k for the next one. Normally you'd be right but in this case, look at the precious metals markets. Everything is about to go nuts this year. 2016 is an exceptional year and at thus exceptional things are bound to happen. You may think that 5k coins are too damn much but if dollar starts to lose its position 5k won't be too much. You have to consider everything to see such gains in the BTC price. If we froze all the other parts of the global economics in time then sure BTC wouldn't see 5k this year, but in combination with the shit hitting the fan on the grand scale, 5k coins are nothing. |
|
|
|
There is no problem that you personally trade at Bter, but this doesn't in the least warrant you to say that Bter is good. I don't know what is your agenda and whether you have one, but Bter is the last exchange (after Craptsy) that can said of as good
I will never trade on bter until they pay me back my BTC they owe me. Bter is the worst exchange after mt gox. |
|
|
|
Soon? How soon? For some people, soon is in 10 years.
I believe you are correct that the market cap will grow this year, however my prediction is a bit lower. Check my thread in my signature. I think the next bubble will get us close to $2k.
I have bet 0.17 BTC that Bitcoin will see a new ATH this year, so I would say if it's going to happen then this year is the perfect year for it to happen. Your prediction of $2k is good but you must account for the bubble factor (panic buying once BTC goes over 1k again). If you consider the bubble factor it is easy to see 5k prices but it is damn obvious that the bubble will collapse and we will consolidate between 2-3k. |
|
|
|
This would be straight out madness. only a lunatic would suggest something like this to happen.
A price rise this big is unknown. Even in the movies.
That is right. Such a big rise would mean a total collapse in the current financial systems happened or is about to happen. I believe we would not like that to happen, no matter how corrupt and bad our current financial system is. Someone has Stockholm syndrome. |
|
|
|
Well soon in your dreams.
Just think about it realistically. How can an asset x12 in a short period of time. We are talking about an asset with a cap of 6.6 billion.
There is no way this can happen.
Yeah right, like that hasn't ever happened before. |
|
|
|
So what would make you change your mind? What arguments, data, evidence, observations, whatever, would you accept?
I would have to be the architect to know the reasons behind the choices of Internet's design. But I would also believe it if the architect was a very close friend of mine and they admitted that they had absolutely no intention to create the Internet in a way that it would remain operational at times of war. I would also want to hear a similar confession from a person who allowed funding to the project and every key participant who knew about it and who had the power to change the course of things. It could very well be that the project was not cancelled only because it had military implications that no one officially talked about. The reasons for such secrecy typically include budget problems. For example, funding policy may require from the project to have solely civilian utility, so any references to military uses may get it cancelled. Just because no one officially talked about the military implications of the Internet does not mean there were none. Especially when the military implications are so damn obvious. |
|
|
|
...and skipped the "(law) Anything admitted by a court to prove or disprove alleged matters of fact in a trial." definition.
Anyhoo...
Are you effectively saying "there is nothing you can do that will make me change my mind"? If that's the case I'd be happy to walk, nay, run away and leave you to it.
No I'm not saying that. I simply do not care if you change your mind or not. You are free to stay and you are free to run or do whatever you want to do. I do feel, though, that my work here is done. You have learned your lesson, you have exhausted all your resources and you wish to get away to think about your life in solitude. |
|
|
|
Are you effectively saying "there is nothing you can do that will make me change my mind"? If that's the case I'd be happy to walk, nay, run away and leave you to it.
I'm honestly not bringing this matter to court. I just happen to believe that intellectual and forensic vigour have a role in discourse.
I didn't mean literally to the court. I mean that you chose the definition of the term evidence that is used in the context of courts. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
While I'd define it like that: evidence --- something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign |
|
|
|
Except there's not a lack of evidence ( "Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion.", "One who bears witness."). I've provided evidence - an observation from someone who was there, someone who was there bearing witness - stating what the design goals were - and were not. I've also provided evidence (facts and observations around the presentation to the UK's NPL in 1968) of the "discovery" of the utility of packet-switching in resisting nuclear attack (albeit in voice telecommunications rather than data), after the inception of ARPANET. I'm not asking you to accept this uncritically. I'm asking you to accept that your claim is, as it stands, without merit - there is no evidence to support your claim, and you have to date provided no evidence to disprove Charles Herzfeld's claim. You're asking us to accept a claim made by someone with no connection to the events over the claim of people who were present, either at the inception of ARPANET or at the later NPL packet-switching demo. Without supporting evidence, and with evidence to the contrary, that's a really big ask. False. I'm not asking anything, it is you who insist on me agreeing with you. You have to learn that it is normal to have people disagreeing with you. If you want to pose yourself as an evolved being you should try to stop the urge to convert others into your religion (whatever the idea is that you fanatically hold on to). You are now bringing the matter to the court, but courts do not seek out truth, you should know that. If courts did that there would be no innocent people convicted, ever. Tell me honestly, what do you believe, does NASA tells us the truth? Because the spokespersons of NASA are also providing us an observation from someone who was there, someone who was there bearing witness. So if your only requirement for evidence was that a person must have been around the object of discussion in some way, then you must have a REALLY distorted and manipulated description of the world. I'd even call it a hopelessly far developed pathology and refuse to cure it. |
|
|
|
As a theory it would be falsifiable, no? So you should (a) be able to disprove it, and (b) provide evidence supporting your theory.
It cannot be proven nor disproven due to lack of evidence. Maybe in the future we will have that evidence but right now neither did you nor me provide any. However, it can be reasoned effectively that it is indeed plausible for the Internet to have been created with military ambitions in mind. I'm still assuming your answer is "no", do please shout if you've come up with some new challenge to rational thought.
Your understanding of rational thought is funny to me. You could as well as present the diary of admiral Richard E. Byrd as evidence that the Earth is hollow. Please, come back when you have evidence to support your claim that the Internet was not designed to withstand war. Until that, the common sense will answer the question for us all --- in network centric warfare the Internet is an inevitable invention and thus was probably created for that purpose. Was fire discovered or invented? What you're saying is like "the Internet was discovered". Being an axiomatic element to the network centric warfare, it is impossible for it to be an accident. Let me guess, you think life on Earth is also an accident? Evolution is the result of mere chance? |
|
|
|
Yes, indeed I do. I have statements from people involved in ARPANET at the time that list ARPANET's design goals, and, to date, no one has shown those statements to be false.
I'm sorry to inform you but that is not evidence. It's at most a theory, but to be more just, I'd call it a speculation. |
|
|
|
Well I assumed you had some reason to make the claim in the first place, you weren't just talking out of your arse. If you just made it up, and it's not grounded in reality, then fair enough. It kind of renders this whole discussion moot, though. OK, I'll make it very short and easy for you to digest. "Besides, the Internet was designed to persist during war. "If this statement of yours is correct, then you should be able to provide evidence supporting it, and you should be able to provide evidence disproving Charles Herzfeld's claim that "the ARPAnet came out of our frustration that there were only a limited number of large, powerful research computers in the country, and that many research investigators who should have access to them were geographically separated from them." Do you have any evidence to support your claim?Do you have any evidence that disproves Charles Herzfeld's claim?(Just two yes/no questions. That shouldn't tire you out too much). I take it your answer, then, is "no"? Do you have any evidence that 2+2 = 4 ? Do you have any evidence that the Internet was not designed to withstand war ? |
|
|
|
If this statement of yours is correct, then you should be able to provide evidence supporting it
Here's where you go wrong. Where do you get such wild ideas? Who told you this?  I must admit, you tricked me well. You made me believe that you were a worthy opponent but I didn't expect you had such fatal flaws in the very basis of your reasoning. "God does not exist. I cannot provide evidence, thus god must exist?" Come on, you can stop trolling now, you're busted |
|
|
|
... long text = shit text ...
The more you need to write in your every reply, the more it shows your lack of ability to contain the situation for your favour. It has now come to a point where you --- instead of trying to put words in my mouth and trying to force me to play by your rules --- have given up and have fallen to a level of a typical internet commentator driven by their emotions. You erroneously think you have shown that the Internet was not designed to withstand war. You think you have proven something that cannot be proven. In reality, you have just shared a theory that the Internet might not have been designed to persist during war. Nice theory, but it will always remain just a theory. I have no problem with you believing in that theory but don't come telling me what I should or should not believe. But really the final nail to your coffin is your own quotation: The ARPAnet was not started to create a Command and Control System that would survive a nuclear attack, as many now claim. To build such a system was clearly a major military need, but it was not ARPA's mission to do this; in fact, we would have been severely criticized had we tried. ... This just gave them the motive to lie about the real reasons behind the creation of the Internet. I normally do not kick people who already lost the fight and were lying on the ground, but since you're probably stubborn enough to continue your rant after this post, I don't feel sorry for you. I know you do agree that the Internet was designed to be versatile. Being versatile is almost equivalent to the ability of withstanding the conditions of war. Robustness implies the natural ability survive in rough conditions such as war. Ability of withstanding in the conditions of war implies inherent robustness. Since here the implication goes both ways we have equivalence. Now you came about saying that even though the Internet was designed to be robust (withstand the conditions of war) it was not designed to withstand the conditions of war (as if it was not robust). I sense an abnormally high level of hypocrisy in you. |
|
|
|
Your thesis is that warfare-persistence was a design goal for ARPANET. Reading back over this discussion I'm surprised you think there's any doubt about that. Perhaps your earlier comments were the fruit of my imagination, but my imagination is still seeing your earlier comments in this thread. Anyway, your thesis - that should be pretty easy for you to prove, eh? Specifically, your thesis is falsifiable - I can show a statement from the guy who commissioned ARPANET saying that warfare-persistence was not a design goal, and iterating what the real design goals were. That too is falsifiable - if you care about the accuracy of your claim, you could make some effort to disprove Charles Herzfeld's statements regarding the design goals of the internet he commissioned. It would make for an exciting new theory about the early history of The Internet - you could be famous.
No, you are absolutely wrong. I have repeated it over and over again and you seem to be deaf, blind and dumb to my statements. I understand your frustration over the fact that I am not playing my role in admitting ownership over the statements that you have so carefully crafted for me. However, you need to understand that what you are doing, is a pointless waste of time. Let me make it really simple for you, because who knows, perhaps I'm talking to a mentally gifted person. 1. The Internet was designed, amongst other things, to withstand war. 2. The commissioner did not have this in mind, but that doesn't falsify the previous statement. Your fallacy lies in the fact that you insist on the commissioner to have been the sole creator of the Internet while in reality he was just a commissioner, much like a police officer is a law enforcer (but not the creator of the law). Or perhaps this will light a bulb for you: If something works very well in a certain condition, then it was designed for such a condition, even if the human aspect of the great designer was not immediately aware of that. You seem to be stuck in the old and rigid way of thinking where a paper trail dictates reality and not vice versa. I repeat myself again and again that there is no way of knowing what were the real reasons behind the creation of the Internet. For starters, the commissioner could lie either knowingly or unknowingly. The papers could be deceiving. If I was to pretend that recorded history is always the utter truth, then of course I would agree that the Internet was not designed for war, being the idiot that I am and believing the sources that you have presented. And since I already know that you have so hard time admitting your defeat I can already guess that you will almost certainly repeat yourself like a broken gramophone. For that reason, I will say one more thing to save myself from too many replies to your funny act of banging your head against the wall. Even if the Internet was obviously and absolutely a terrible invention under the typical conditions of war and your beloved commissioner stated that they never designed the Internet to withstand war, even then I would not immediately interpret this with absolute certainty as what really happened. I was not there when it happened, I have no way of knowing what really happened, but I do have my common sense --- if it looks like cat, acts like a cat and meows like a cat, then it must be a cat. If it looks like it was designed to persist in rough conditions then it was probably designed to persist in rough conditions (no matter what your beloved government-that-would-never-lie-to-you says). |
|
|
|
Once again, how did you arrive at that? You're using the RAND corporation's discovery, and using it to support the argument that the pre-existing ARPANET was designed to persist warfare? Are you saying ARPA had access to time-travel technology?
Have you managed to find any evidence to support your thesis? It should be pretty trivial, eh.
I am not your father. What you perceive as my argument is a fruit of your imagination. As for the time travel, ironically The Philadelphia Experiment is an alleged military experiment that is said to have been carried out by the U.S. Navy at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania some time around October 28, 1943. while Access to the ARPANET was expanded in 1981 when the National Science Foundation (NSF) funded the Computer Science Network (CSNET). In 1982, the Internet protocol suite (TCP/IP) was introduced as the standard networking protocol on the ARPANET. so it is plausible to say that in fact, ARPA could have had access to time-travel technology. |
|
|
|
There is every way for you to know whether you are correct: my assertion is falsifiable; have at it.
The Internet is most certainly an ingenious invention; this became apparent during its inception when - separately, and in the UK - a RAND corporation scientist discussed packet-switching in the context of electronic (voice) communications, and their survivability in the event of a nuclear attack. That's another falsifiable assertion, as before be my guest and have at it.
Great, so you learned your lesson? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
