Adam trolling about BU forks brings all the bears to the yard:

Your response to him makes 0 sense because it's a fact just about everything is insider traded.  The media, especially CNBC, ALWAYS tells you to dump at the floor and buy at the top, like when they were spamming gold was a "barbarous relic" and then it skyrockets right after.  Whether his analysis is true or not is another thing entirely.  The banker shills floating around seem to actually want people to use bitcoin nowadays (because they know how easy it is to co-opt), with people like Ben Bernanke and David Cameron endorsing it, so there's no telling what effect things like that will have on ETF approval.

Which is why I endorse physical silver over bitcoin.  Assuming bitcoin doesn't implode or get co-opted by govt or something, it can also be captured cartel style where a few corporations just hold everyone hostage by control of the mining pools and what fees are, how they can be spent, etc.  You don't have to ask permission to a (((corporation))) or (((government))) to spend or barter a silver coin.  They cannot charge you a fee to use your own money.


Wrong, it is the jews that are anti-white and they only attempt to use the word "anti-semite" to describe people against their sick and disgusting agenda.

People running the Bitfinex bucketshop trading on their own exchange have no inside knowledge of ETF approval, so those people buying or dumping doesn't really tell you anything.  People who are leveraged also cut and run with the profits they already accumulated even in a 50/50 approval/rejection scenario.

Are we rich yet?

Because it's anti-semitic to not allow jews to live off of your work through parasitic, fractional reserve usury.  The picture even looks identical to Krugman:

First time I've ever seen a woman talk about economics and didn't sound ridiculous.  She inadvertently backs up my thesis as to why we will head back to somewhat of a dark ages (not full dark ages, but just no more advancement and maybe decline for a while), because civilization is forced to revert back to the lowest common denominator or average:

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2017/02/20/oops-the-economy-is-like-a-self-driving-car/

If anything, there are more shorters to squeeze and a ton of bitcoin media spam right now so it would likely keep going up till ETF.  Bitfinex is a crooked bucketshop, so if anyone but the house takes out a large position on that exchange or Okcoin it's going to be squeezed by Finex moving the market.  And if the house takes out a position and it doesn't go their way, well, there's going to be a goxing.

The main issue with your thinking is the assumption that bitcoin is free of counter party risk just because you have the private keys.  It's not.  MatTheCat is a few Budweisers short of a 6pack and even he figured this out.  Holding a commodity form of money in your hand (generally noble metals) and defending it with an AR15 is really the only way to completely get out of counter party risk, as the bitcoins never actually leave the blockchain in the first place - an electronic amalgamation of a domain in which you don't really have any power over yourself.

This paper market ponzi looks like it's getting a little close to the end of days:

Which still leaves the hard part of creating a functioning LN and getting everyone to switch before the bitcoin price completely overwhelms it's actual capabilities and transaction fees get to $1-2.

I'm not sure.  The Chinese tend to hold a grudge and believe Luke Jr has "dishonored" them lol.  I think the current low participation of segwit is a part of that.  Maybe it will change in time, no idea.  Chinese are very mule-headed people.  Last time I checked it appeared the Chinese were trying to push BU instead.  It's like watching a train wreck.  On-chain scaling is useless, and they don't even have a valid LN implementation, so it's a choice of fail A or fail B at this point in time.  

I believe the current market price is just starting to equal or get ahead of bitcoin's actual capabilities as well.  If it required 2 years to have some type of working increase in scaling, the price could top out and then decline from there in the meanwhile, but it seems like 2 years would even be optimistic at this point.  LN requires all types of infrastructure and wallet changes and there's no working LN to begin with.

Yea, that's the problem.  Even if they get LN to function in some manner, segwit still isn't approved so it might require a large price crash before miners adopt it, then it goes back up.

No, that's bullshit. I was all-in on gold at $420, so long before I was into bitcoin.  The only thing that draws me to bitcoin over metals (just like everyone else on earth) was potential upside, but once you get to a state where the potential upside on things like silver is equal or higher than bitcoin, bitcoin becomes a pretty hard sell.  It also takes a long time to figure out all the fundamentals of bitcoin vs metals and how bitcoin could evolve.  

For a while I actually thought they might pull off a 2nd tier payment layer with a zillion TPS and send this thing to the moon, but a currency (not money) with only 4 TPS?  That's a whole different likely orders of magnitude lower market cap.  I mean, it might get stuck at $10k a coin or less.  Is the bitcoin risk really worth that upside?

The truth is, bitcoin is mostly a Rube Goldberg machine that attempts to do what metals do, but doesn't do it nearly as good (maybe failing completely in this mimicking act), while being more inefficient in the process of attempting to do so.  I mean, if bitcoin doesn't actually form a valid Nash equilibrium, remove counter party risk, or act as a permissionless ledger (can't be permissionless if it's not fungible), then what is the point of using it over metals?  Metals would be superior in face to face transactions, and for digital it would generally be the same thing as putting gold or silver in a vault owned by somebody else.

Again, I consider "anti-fragile" mostly just a made up slogan in the first place that people try to attach an arbitrary definition to.  You claim I didn't use the word correctly then forgot to mention that it was popularized by people in bitcoin who also have never used the word correctly in the first place.  If everyone uses the word in a completely different colloquial manner, then that definition usually takes over.  Anyway, who cares, it was a term popularized by people trying to pump and dump bitcoin and claiming it's as sturdy and durable as gold when it's not.

Again, my response to that:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082909.msg18053760#msg18053760

and my reply to the bogus reddit chart some guy posted that lies about all traits of bitcoin in order to try and pump and dump it lol:

In other words, you believe the exact opposite of the creature known as Satohi's own words.  The more you know about bitcoin, the more skeptical you are of it's future.  The dumb money speculators are always the most optimistic, while people that actually worked on the thing like Gavin you could always tell were surprised if it didn't blow up at random and increased at all.  

You also posted a reddit propaganda chart that flat out lies and claims bitcoin is fungible, not to mention the part about "secure", "durable" and "decentralized" are not even a given.  And how does the rough consensus attack play into scarcity?  That chart was clearly created solely to try and pump and dump bitcoin and not for any type of education.  

Someone is also probably going to claim "you can't destroy bitcoin with a hammer so it's durable!".  Bitcoin requires a positive energy input to exist at all.  How is that durable?  It's essentially a living organism and all living things die.  Bitcoin is a screen door standing in the way of the truck known as entropy to be run over and scattered to the wind, while things like gold are more entropy resistant (but not proof).  And that is why one is money and one is currency.  Money is supposed to be boring and not mutate into something else or cease to exist at random.