US Marshalls auction...what time will results/winner be announced today?

[jaredboice]

MORE CAPS!!!!

Anyway, just to stick to the thread. I have a hunch we will find out early next week that the losing bids for the auction were above the 400 dollar mark. I'm betting on higher prices next week because of it. 

On the FUD side, my main concern over this week has been trying to find out how much of an influence MMM really had on the price move. I'm worried that even if the entire scam was actually not all that significant it will still be presented as such in the media.

Medium term, if MMM proves to not be a problem and the block size debate gets "resolved" properly (I think the entire issue has been overblown) - I would be ultra bullish.

$400-800 is the band I would logical up until around the middle of next year. Just so I don't get confused with a bear, my 2020+ number is over 10,000. Way over, in fact, as we get closer to the full supply being available to the market (3030's). 

My Caps were used as emphasis in my SUPPORTED ARGUMENTS. LOL  
Feel free to add caps to supported arguments of your own.

Yes of course the media will want people to think that Bitcoin is only going up because of some ponzi scheme.  That is standard operating procedure.  

[jaredboice]

"All of these responses are no good; they act much in the same way his responses act towards your points."

Why are you wasting your time in a forum category about speculating if you think all responses about speculation are no good?  You are either a troll or you are retarded.


"The only difference in my mind is that you are stating these positions as being guaranteed outcomes..."

No, the only difference is that I'm actually adding substance to my positions with an explanation that adds specific reasons and doesn't bloviate on and on about how my opinion is subjective and I have experience in GPAA and I don't think this and I don't believe in that and I like the color blue, and I like to wear white shirts on thursdays, and I like to eat cereal for breakfast, etc.. ... .. No substance.  No reasons.  Just opinions and beliefs.

"Further, he has stated he doesn't wish to impose his views on you and you are arguing that he should be FORCED to accept your position."

First off, I'm not forcing anyone to accept my positions.  I'm requesting REASONS for a particular opinion or belief.  If you're not adding substance to your views here, you might as well just be masterbating.  
 
"Look over what you wrote:

-The first thing, for example, you simply wrote an entire paragraph stating that the way in which he has written is not convenient for you."

Yes, it's absolutely not convenient to intellectual progress to just state a view in a speculation thread with absolutely no reason why. You might as well not even participate.

"I actually think it would be easier to damage BTC vs piratebay... but, that is for another time."

  Where's your reason why!?  YOU ARE BLOVIATING  


"I hope those advantages are enough. But, there is no guarantee of that."

I have already stated that there's no guarantees.  But should I have to state that?  Isn't that obvious?  Isn't it implied that nobody knows the future IN A THREAD ABOUT SPECULATION.  My god, all I'm asking for is SUBSTANCE.  I don't need a guarantee.  


"Yahoo was vastly ahead of GOOGLE (same for myspace vs FB)... network effects alone are not necessarily enough."

Finally!  You attempt to add substance.  Yes, there's no guarantee that Yahoo was going to stay top dog forever.  But it certainly was used by hundreds of millions of people and made shit tons of money.  There are big differences with Yahoo, however, when compared to Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is completely open source.  It's development potential is distributed.  If something came around that offered a superior property that bitcoin needed but didn't have, Bitcoin could be updated rather quickly.  So it's not so easy to bypass Bitcoin the way Google bypassed Yahoo.  

"Pretending what you wrote is "analysis" is silly. "

You seem to think all speculation is opinion and adding substance to your views is silly.  It's fortunate for me that I don't invest according to the same principals


"Pretending that because the network has not been successfully attacked means it CANT be attacked is silly."

I'm not pretending anything.  There's been plenty of attacks on Bitcoin.  78+ "Bitcoin is dead" articles from the mainstream media over the course of the last few years is very telling to the actual resilience to bitcoin and the actual agenda of the mainstream press.

"But, to really analyze this is a complex issue demanding a formal paper. I don't think we should hold one another to that standard on a forum like this - but then, we have to let someone else get away with saying "hey, this is my personal opinion, this is my hunch, etc" without demanding more from them then we are willing to do ourselves."

Bahaha!  What a bunch of hubris.  OK, so let's not hold ourself to standards such as adding support and substance to our views.  

I demand much more from myself.  Notice that throughout this entire thread I have added substance and support for my arguments.  I don't bloviate on and on.  

Bloviate: to talk at length, especially in an inflated or empty way.

Maybe you can't read makecake.  The definition stated "to talk at length IN AN EMPTY WAY.  I have added substance to my views.  That's the big difference. Thanks again for your comments  

[bButtercup]

...
My Caps were... standard operating procedure.  

CAP LOCK = CRUISE CONTROL 4 COOL!!!11!11!one

[jaredboice]

...
My Caps were... standard operating procedure.  

CAP LOCK = CRUISE CONTROL 4 COOL!!!11!11!one

There's a difference between using caps for EMPHASIS, and EXAGGERATING THE USE OF CAPS TO SUCH AN EXTENT AS AN ATTEMPT TO HUMILIATE AND DISCREDIT A GUY USING SUBSTANCE AND REASONS IN HIS RESPONSES TO A BUNCH OF TROLLS AND SHILLS WHO ARE JUST TRYING TO AFFECT SENTIMENT WITH A BUNCH OF EMPTY RHETORIC AND BASELESS BELIEFS.  

 

[makeacake]

"All of these responses are no good; they act much in the same way his responses act towards your points."

Why are you wasting your time in a forum category about speculating if you think all responses about speculation are no good?  You are either a troll or you are retarded.


"The only difference in my mind is that you are stating these positions as being guaranteed outcomes..."

No, the only difference is that I'm actually adding substance to my positions with an explanation that adds specific reasons and doesn't bloviate on and on about how my opinion is subjective and I have experience in GPAA and I don't think this and I don't believe in that and I like the color blue, and I like to wear white shirts on thursdays, and I like to eat cereal for breakfast, etc.. ... .. No substance.  No reasons.  Just opinions and beliefs.

"Further, he has stated he doesn't wish to impose his views on you and you are arguing that he should be FORCED to accept your position."

First off, I'm not forcing anyone to accept my positions.  I'm requesting REASONS for a particular opinion or belief.  If you're not adding substance to your views here, you might as well just be masterbating.  
 
"Look over what you wrote:

-The first thing, for example, you simply wrote an entire paragraph stating that the way in which he has written is not convenient for you."

Yes, it's absolutely not convenient to intellectual progress to just state a view in a speculation thread with absolutely no reason why. You might as well not even participate.

"I actually think it would be easier to damage BTC vs piratebay... but, that is for another time."

  Where's your reason why!?  YOU ARE BLOVIATING  


"I hope those advantages are enough. But, there is no guarantee of that."

I have already stated that there's no guarantees.  But should I have to state that?  Isn't that obvious?  Isn't it implied that nobody knows the future IN A THREAD ABOUT SPECULATION.  My god, all I'm asking for is SUBSTANCE.  I don't need a guarantee.  


"Yahoo was vastly ahead of GOOGLE (same for myspace vs FB)... network effects alone are not necessarily enough."

Finally!  You attempt to add substance.  Yes, there's no guarantee that Yahoo was going to stay top dog forever.  But it certainly was used by hundreds of millions of people and made shit tons of money.  There are big differences with Yahoo, however, when compared to Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is completely open source.  It's development potential is distributed.  If something came around that offered a superior property that bitcoin needed but didn't have, Bitcoin could be updated rather quickly.  So it's not so easy to bypass Bitcoin the way Google bypassed Yahoo.  

"Pretending what you wrote is "analysis" is silly. "

You seem to think all speculation is opinion and adding substance to your views is silly.  It's fortunate for me that I don't invest according to the same principals


"Pretending that because the network has not been successfully attacked means it CANT be attacked is silly."

I'm not pretending anything.  There's been plenty of attacks on Bitcoin.  78+ "Bitcoin is dead" articles from the mainstream media over the course of the last few years is very telling to the actual resilience to bitcoin and the actual agenda of the mainstream press.

"But, to really analyze this is a complex issue demanding a formal paper. I don't think we should hold one another to that standard on a forum like this - but then, we have to let someone else get away with saying "hey, this is my personal opinion, this is my hunch, etc" without demanding more from them then we are willing to do ourselves."

Bahaha!  What a bunch of hubris.  OK, so let's not hold ourself to standards such as adding support and substance to our views.  

I demand much more from myself.  Notice that throughout this entire thread I have added substance and support for my arguments.  I don't bloviate on and on.  

Bloviate: to talk at length, especially in an inflated or empty way.

Maybe you can't read makecake.  The definition stated "to talk at length IN AN EMPTY WAY...

I can read just fine, now stop Bloviating like a gigantic Bloviator

[jaredboice]

I don't think you can.  Bloviating means talking without any substance.  I've added all kinds of substance.  Therefore, you are a troll.  
And I am a Troll Slayer  

[makeacake]

I don't think you can.  Bloviating means taking without any substance.  I've added all kinds of substance.  Therefore, you are a troll.  
And I am a Troll Slayer  

No, you just bloviated yourself into a Stupid bloviation, you Stupid Person.
Now deal with it

[rtrtcrypto]

"There's been plenty of attacks on Bitcoin.  78+ "Bitcoin is dead" articles from the mainstream media over the course of the last few years is very telling to the actual resilience to bitcoin and the actual agenda of the mainstream press"

WHAT ANALYSIS!!!!! MUCH WOW!!!!

So much better than my points! We can even include links to websites to "prove" that we are using deep analytical tools in breaking down the arguments of others? Incredible!

Are you a scholar? May I read your published work anywhere?

The analysis you provided in this thread so far, I must say, it is groundbreaking:

-a link to a website and even the number of articles written?! Incredible research.
-analytically deep comments like "Yet Bitcoin still is top dog by Billions and Billions of dollars", man, the ability to look up market cap on coinmarketcap is the stuff of legend.
-"Bitcoin is completely open source.  It's development potential is distributed.  If something came around that offered a superior property that bitcoin needed but didn't have, Bitcoin could be updated rather quickly"... man, are you sure you are not satoshi himself? Because, this level of analysis is really unheard of.

-There will be a battle between centralized elitists and an exponentially growing decentralized peer-to-peer network.  

ONE MAN, ONE DESIRE... in 2016, THERE WILL BE AN EPIC BATTLE OF INCREDIBLE BLOCKCHAINEAN PROPORTIONS.

Truth is, every single point brought up as "substance" doesn't go much further than "because I said so". This is not substance, this is not scholarship, this is not anything but your semi-informed opinion from having read a bunch of bitcoin blogs and this forum. It would be fine, but, you pretend it is otherwise.

Speculate all you want, and I think you are right in betting on bitcoin, but to pretend that your "analysis" in this thread is anything other than you having read this forum and a few wikipedia entries is a joke.

"All of these responses are no good; they act much in the same way his responses act towards your points."

Why are you wasting your time in a forum category about speculating if you think all responses about speculation are no good?  You are either a troll or you are retarded.


"The only difference in my mind is that you are stating these positions as being guaranteed outcomes..."

No, the only difference is that I'm actually adding substance to my positions with an explanation that adds specific reasons and doesn't bloviate on and on about how my opinion is subjective and I have experience in GPAA and I don't think this and I don't believe in that and I like the color blue, and I like to wear white shirts on thursdays, and I like to eat cereal for breakfast, etc.. ... .. No substance.  No reasons.  Just opinions and beliefs.

"Further, he has stated he doesn't wish to impose his views on you and you are arguing that he should be FORCED to accept your position."

First off, I'm not forcing anyone to accept my positions.  I'm requesting REASONS for a particular opinion or belief.  If you're not adding substance to your views here, you might as well just be masterbating.  
 
"Look over what you wrote:

-The first thing, for example, you simply wrote an entire paragraph stating that the way in which he has written is not convenient for you."

Yes, it's absolutely not convenient to intellectual progress to just state a view in a speculation thread with absolutely no reason why. You might as well not even participate.

"I actually think it would be easier to damage BTC vs piratebay... but, that is for another time."

  Where's your reason why!?  YOU ARE BLOVIATING  


"I hope those advantages are enough. But, there is no guarantee of that."

I have already stated that there's no guarantees.  But should I have to state that?  Isn't that obvious?  Isn't it implied that nobody knows the future IN A THREAD ABOUT SPECULATION.  My god, all I'm asking for is SUBSTANCE.  I don't need a guarantee.  


"Yahoo was vastly ahead of GOOGLE (same for myspace vs FB)... network effects alone are not necessarily enough."

Finally!  You attempt to add substance.  Yes, there's no guarantee that Yahoo was going to stay top dog forever.  But it certainly was used by hundreds of millions of people and made shit tons of money.  There are big differences with Yahoo, however, when compared to Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is completely open source.  It's development potential is distributed.  If something came around that offered a superior property that bitcoin needed but didn't have, Bitcoin could be updated rather quickly.  So it's not so easy to bypass Bitcoin the way Google bypassed Yahoo.  

"Pretending what you wrote is "analysis" is silly. "

You seem to think all speculation is opinion and adding substance to your views is silly.  It's fortunate for me that I don't invest according to the same principals


"Pretending that because the network has not been successfully attacked means it CANT be attacked is silly."

I'm not pretending anything.  There's been plenty of attacks on Bitcoin.  78+ "Bitcoin is dead" articles from the mainstream media over the course of the last few years is very telling to the actual resilience to bitcoin and the actual agenda of the mainstream press. http://www.bitcoinobituaries.com

"But, to really analyze this is a complex issue demanding a formal paper. I don't think we should hold one another to that standard on a forum like this - but then, we have to let someone else get away with saying "hey, this is my personal opinion, this is my hunch, etc" without demanding more from them then we are willing to do ourselves."

Bahaha!  What a bunch of hubris.  OK, so let's not hold ourself to standards such as adding support and substance to our views.  

I DO demand much more from myself.  Notice that throughout this entire thread I have added substance and support for my arguments.  I don't bloviate on and on.  

Bloviate: to talk at length, especially in an inflated or empty way.

[rtrtcrypto]

He has added ALL KINDS of substance guys... including feces, it seems.

I don't think you can.  Bloviating means talking without any substance.  I've added all kinds of substance.  Therefore, you are a troll.  
And I am a Troll Slayer  

[jaredboice]

I don't think you can.  Bloviating means taking without any substance.  I've added all kinds of substance.  Therefore, you are a troll.  
And I am a Troll Slayer  

No, you just bloviated yourself into a Stupid bloviation, you Stupid Person.
Now deal with it

  ok bro, whatever you say

[jaredboice]

"So much better than my points! We can even include links to websites to "prove" that we are using deep analytical tools in breaking down the arguments of others? Incredible!"

There's a difference between "prove" and "add substance."  There's not much you can prove in the realm of speculation.  But when there's already 78+ articles about the death of bitcoin within the last few years, and bitcoin is still not dead, that's got SUBSTANCE. I'm still waiting on your reasons why you think it should be easier for the government to kill Bitcoin than PirateBay.

"Are you a scholar? May I read your published work anywhere?"

Are you a scholar?  More importantly, are you trying to imply that one has to be a scholar in order to add support and substance to their views rather than just stating an empty opinion?

"The analysis you provided in this thread so far, I must say, it is groundbreaking:

-a link to a website and even the number of articles written?! Incredible research.
-analytically deep comments like "Yet Bitcoin still is top dog by Billions and Billions of dollars", man, the ability to look up market cap on coinmarketcap is the stuff of legend."

I linked to a website that shows 78+ articles written in the past few years that are trying to convince people that Bitcoin is dead.  Bitcoin is still alive and well.  That says a lot about the agenda of the media.  


"man, are you sure you are not satoshi himself? Because, this level of analysis is really unheard of."

Thanks!!  

"ONE MAN, ONE DESIRE... in 2016, THERE WILL BE AN EPIC BATTLE OF INCREDIBLE BLOCKCHAINEAN PROPORTIONS. "

Is that your attempt to be funny?  So I add substance to the view that there's already a battle going on between blockchain instances yet Bitcoin is still exponentially higher and exhibiting a very strong network effect...and you attack that?  You are attacking me for adding substance whereas you're all just like "Whatever, there's no guarantee of anything"  

"Truth is, every single point brought up as "substance" doesn't go much further than "because I said so". This is not substance, this is not scholarship, this is not anything but your semi-informed opinion from having read a bunch of bitcoin blogs and this forum. It would be fine, but, you pretend it is otherwise."

My "semi-informed opinion" is much more informed than yours.  People can feel free to scroll up and read the substance I added to my arguments they can see you are your trolling friend's constant bloviating and your attempt to appear as bitcoin bulls with all kinds of unsubstantiated bearish opinions.  They should just start at the beginning of the thread, however, as ever since i called the OP out on not adding any support to his bearish statements that were made to look bullish, they've been trying to convince readers that they actually do add support to their views....without adding any support at all.

"Speculate all you want, and I think you are right in betting on bitcoin, but to pretend that your "analysis" in this thread is anything other than you having read this forum and a few wikipedia entries is a joke."

You're a joke.  I added support to my responses and you attack me for trying to add supporting information.  Baseless opinions are so much more acceptable around here  

[rtrtcrypto]

you like the word "substance", huh?

[jaredboice]

you like the word "substance", huh?

You like getting paid to troll huh, and present baseless bearish statements in the guise of a bull?

Yes I like the word substance, because I won't let up.  I will keep asking for supporting information and substance for your retarded statements.

Tell me again, why do you think Bitcoin should be easier for the government to kill than The Pirate Bay?  Let's hear some SUBSTANCE

[makeacake]

.@rtrtcrypto: stop replying to jaredboice troll. I think he has Assburgers.

[jaredboice]

.@rtrtcrypto: stop replying to jaredboice troll. I think he has Assburgers.

 

No please, keep replying.  The longer this goes on the less of a shit people will give about you and your crony shills' bearish troll of a thread that's disguised to look like a bunch of bulls.  The guy pretends like he's the biggest bull he knows and then he's like, "The Government could kill Bitcoin easier than The Pirate Bay"

 

[rtrtcrypto]

Depends by what you mean by "kill" I suppose.

I don't think the BTC network can be destroyed, I think it is probably highly anti-fragile by now (Lindy effect on a network like this (p2p)? For 6 years? That is substantial).

Still, for the purpose of what was brought up in this thread, which was a value vs. price discussion that really (whether it wanted to or not) was focused on ROI?

I think PIRATEBAY can serve an utility even under extreme attack and distress. The bitcoin network can as well, no doubt, but, if your goal was to get a return on investment and you bought in around where we are now? There is no guarantee that the network can, under certain types of attacks, retain this capitalization - at least not in the short term. The volatility is there for a reason after all: thinly traded market, somewhat illiquid, less than fully professional services in key economic areas (exchanges in China, the largest market by far), worries about scams (like MMM this very moment).  

Like I've said previously, my target is for this network to attain a value in the trillions - I believe that will happen (what a crazy bear I am!!!!!) Certain models in network theory show that this is possible, the value of a network like this probably follows something similar to Zipf's Law - so, added adoption should have a massive impact on price/value... much more so than people can understand to be "sane". On a similar vein, I'm not too worried about distribution, as I believe Pareto distribution is going to take hold regardless... projects like NEM will find this out the hard way. Though, the GINI index for BTC is not something to be celebrated in its current form.

What I'm saying is, if your goal is ROI from THIS PONT FORWARDS, the utility of the BTC network could be compromised in a way that is maybe more extreme than the utility of PIRATEBAY under a similar scale of attack for each individual network.

Destroying BTC is impossible, in my estimation. But, a very coordinated attack worries me from an adoption stand point - and thinking about ROI at this stage is more or less a bet that falls purely on the extent the network is adopted.

 

you like the word "substance", huh?

You like getting paid to troll huh, and present baseless bearish statements in the guise of a bull?

Yes I like the word substance, because I won't let up.  I will keep asking for supporting information and substance for your retarded statements.

Tell me again, why do you think Bitcoin should be easier for the government to kill than The Pirate Bay?  Let's hear some SUBSTANCE

[jaredboice]

"Still, for the purpose of what was brought up in this thread, which was a value vs. price discussion that really (whether it wanted to or not) was focused on ROI? "

I haven't learned anything about your distinction between Value and Price from this statement.  Were you trying to indicate that the subject has been changed?  Well the subject was initially "US Marhsalls auction....what time will results/winner be announced today" and then the OP leads that into his belief that Bitcoin would be a good buy at $280 (but not at current prices) yet he tries to identify himself as a bull.  That's a lot of psychological manipulation going on there.

"There is no guarantee that the network can, under certain types of attacks, retain this capitalization"

There's no guarantee that any stock or share of anything will retain anything at any time.  Bitcoin has been attacked every which way through DDoS attacks and media attacks galore numbering over 78+ "Bitcoin is Dead" type arguments that have been documented.  It's still up over 3 Million percent since its inception only 6 years ago when it was like $0.001, and that was after several boom and bust cycles already.  If you think that doesn't add support for its ability to survive in the future (ability, not guarantee) than I don't think you're being intellectually honest.  

"The volatility is there for a reason after all: thinly traded market, somewhat illiquid, less than fully professional services in key economic areas (exchanges in China, the largest market by far), worries about scams (like MMM this very moment)."

Yes, it's certainly thinly traded.  The MMM Ponzi scheme worries are being exaggerated by the media the same way they exaggerated 78+ articles that claim Bitcoin died over the past few years.  I'm not worried about these scams because I'm not participating in them.  The mainstream media loves to try to connect bitcoin to ISIS, and Ponzi Schemes, and Drug Dealers because that is the ugly dark side of bitcoin markets.  USD has far darker black markets than Bitcoin.  Bitcoin only has a $5 Billion market cap.  That's probably the profit margin of some of the drug dealing and ponzi scheming going on with US Dollars. To claim Bitcoin is only going up because of a ponzi scheme and not because it's a decentralized open source autonomous trustless value transmission system that has no borders or boundaries and can trade value virtually instantaneously for little to no fees, is trolling.

"Like I've said previously, my target is for this network to attain a value in the trillions - I believe that will happen (what a crazy bear I am!!!!!)"

Yet you betray yourself by saying things like thinking the government can kill Bitcoin easier than The Pirate Bay, and concerns that the Blocksize issue will destroy bitcoin, and that ponzi schemes are what's probably responsible for the current rise.  OK sure, what a Bull you are.   Sounds more like you're mixing bullish sentiment with bearish declarations to stir Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD).

"Certain models in network theory show that this is possible, the value of a network like this probably follows something similar to Zipf's Law - so, added adoption should have a massive impact on price/value... much more so than people can understand to be "sane". On a similar vein, I'm not too worried about distribution, as I believe Pareto distribution is going to take hold regardless... projects like NEM will find this out the hard way. Though, the GINI index for BTC is not something to be celebrated in its current form."

See you say something like this, adding a bunch of smart sounding words to make you sound like a well-researched bull, and then, immediately after:

"What I'm saying is, if your goal is ROI from THIS PONT FORWARDS, the utility of the BTC network could be compromised in a way that is maybe more extreme than the utility of PIRATEBAY under a similar scale of attack for each individual network."

     

"Destroying BTC is impossible, in my estimation. But, a very coordinated attack worries me from an adoption stand point - and thinking about ROI at this stage is more or less a bet that falls purely on the extent the network is adopted."

yes, everybody understands this.  You're adding absolutely nothing.  Everybody knows that if adoption goes up, price is likely to go up and if adoption goes down, price is likely to go down.  Everybody knows that if the network gets attacked, price could go down because of weak hands and Fear and Greed, etc.  You've added absolutely nothing.  Just bloviating on and on

And you STILL haven't explained how exactly The Bitcoin Network could be killed easier than The Pirate bay.  In your last response, you basically just said That The Pirate bay is fairly resilient to attack but Bitcoin also is too, but the BTC Network "could be compromised in a way that is maybe more extreme than the utility of PIRATEBAY under a similar scale of attack for each individual network"

still without a single reason why!  AMAZING!  You wrote that long of a response WITHOUT A SINGLE ANSWER!!!  

For each individual network?  WTH are you talking about!?  How in the world is Pirate Bay going to be killed easier than an encrypted network with more distribution??

And PirateBay actually agrees with me!! Check out this article on how they discussed adopting bitcoin like properties, because:

"This means that blocking IP addresses, which UK ISPs have been ordered to do by courts, won’t work, as there is no central IP address to block."

https://recombu.com/digital/article/pirate-bay-bitcoin-p2p-network_M12668.html  

Bitcoin is referred to again in the following article on:

How The Pirate Bay Plans to Beat Censorship for Good
https://torrentfreak.com/how-the-pirate-bay-plans-to-beat-censorship-for-good-140105/

You see kids, you reallly can identify trolls and shills by how much they bloviate  
 

[makeacake]

.@rtrtcrypto: stop replying to jaredboice troll. I think he has Assburgers.

 

No please, keep replying.  The longer this goes on the less of a shit people will give about you and your crony shills' bearish troll of a thread that's disguised to look like a bunch of bulls.  The guy pretends like he's the biggest bull he knows and then he's like, "The Government could kill Bitcoin easier than The Pirate Bay"

 

"The Government" doesn't need to "kill" Bitcoin in the same sense as [it halfheartedly tries to kill] The Pirate Bay. I'm sure a few diehards will continue using Bitcoin to buy & sell drugs and child porn on fly-by-night Dark Net Markets, even if governments outlaw it, like Taiwan has, or if using it will get you 4 years in the gulag, as soon will be the case in Russia.

But governments can prevent large-scale adoption and use, because Granny won't be duped into using Bitcoin, no matter how stupid and desperate she is, if Bitcoin is made illegal & using it means risking a 4-year jail stretch. If made illegal, the value of BTC will plummet & return to the single digits where it belongs -- so that neckbeards too afraid to leave their basements to score decent drugs could continue overpaying for their shitty bath salts fix.

If you wish to learn more about the steps governments need to take to effectively eradicate Bitcoin, don't hesitate to ask

[rtrtcrypto]

The level of hand waving and incoherence here is just mind-boggling.

"Still, for the purpose of what was brought up in this thread, which was a value vs. price discussion that really (whether it wanted to or not) was focused on ROI? "

I haven't learned anything about your distinction between Value and Price from this statement.  Were you trying to indicate that the subject has been changed?  Well the subject was initially "US Marhsalls auction....what time will results/winner be announced today" and then the OP leads that into his belief that Bitcoin would be a good buy at $280 (but not at current prices) yet he tries to identify himself as a bull.  That's a lot of psychological manipulation going on there.

"There is no guarantee that the network can, under certain types of attacks, retain this capitalization"

There's no guarantee that any stock or share of anything will retain anything at any time.  Bitcoin has been attacked every which way through DDoS attacks and media attacks galore numbering over 78+ "Bitcoin is Dead" type arguments that have been documented.  It's still up over 3 Million percent since its inception only 6 years ago when it was like $0.001, and that was after several boom and bust cycles already.  If you think that doesn't add support for its ability to survive in the future (ability, not guarantee) than I don't think you're being intellectually honest.  

"The volatility is there for a reason after all: thinly traded market, somewhat illiquid, less than fully professional services in key economic areas (exchanges in China, the largest market by far), worries about scams (like MMM this very moment)."

Yes, it's certainly thinly traded.  The MMM Ponzi scheme worries are being exaggerated by the media the same way they exaggerated 78+ articles that claim Bitcoin died over the past few years.  I'm not worried about these scams because I'm not participating in them.  The mainstream media loves to try to connect bitcoin to ISIS, and Ponzi Schemes, and Drug Dealers because that is the ugly dark side of bitcoin markets.  USD has far darker black markets than Bitcoin.  Bitcoin only has a $5 Billion market cap.  That's probably the profit margin of some of the drug dealing and ponzi scheming going on with US Dollars. To claim Bitcoin is only going up because of a ponzi scheme and not because it's a decentralized open source autonomous trustless value transmission system that has no borders or boundaries and can trade value virtually instantaneously for little to no fees, is trolling.

"Like I've said previously, my target is for this network to attain a value in the trillions - I believe that will happen (what a crazy bear I am!!!!!)"

Yet you betray yourself by saying things like thinking the government can kill Bitcoin easier than The Pirate Bay, and concerns that the Blocksize issue will destroy bitcoin, and that ponzi schemes are what's probably responsible for the current rise.  OK sure, what a Bull you are.   Sounds more like you're mixing bullish sentiment with bearish declarations to stir Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD).

"Certain models in network theory show that this is possible, the value of a network like this probably follows something similar to Zipf's Law - so, added adoption should have a massive impact on price/value... much more so than people can understand to be "sane". On a similar vein, I'm not too worried about distribution, as I believe Pareto distribution is going to take hold regardless... projects like NEM will find this out the hard way. Though, the GINI index for BTC is not something to be celebrated in its current form."

See you say something like this, adding a bunch of smart sounding words to make you sound like a well-researched bull, and then, immediately after:

"What I'm saying is, if your goal is ROI from THIS PONT FORWARDS, the utility of the BTC network could be compromised in a way that is maybe more extreme than the utility of PIRATEBAY under a similar scale of attack for each individual network."

     

"Destroying BTC is impossible, in my estimation. But, a very coordinated attack worries me from an adoption stand point - and thinking about ROI at this stage is more or less a bet that falls purely on the extent the network is adopted."

yes, everybody understands this.  You're adding absolutely nothing.  Of course when the network gets attacked, value is likely to go down and then rebound like it has so many times.  Is this guaranteed?  Absolutely not.  But we are all adults here.  We all understand nothing is guaranteed, but we can still seek substance for why we believe it will go a certain direction with a certain magnitude.

And you STILL haven't explained how exactly The Bitcoin Network could be killed easier than The Pirate bay.  In your last response, you basically just said That The Pirate bay is fairly resilient to attack but Bitcoin also is too, but the BTC Network "could be compromised in a way that is maybe more extreme than the utility of PIRATEBAY under a similar scale of attack for each individual network"

still without a single reason why!  AMAZING!  You wrote that long of a response WITHOUT A SINGLE ANSWER!!!  

For each individual network?  WTH are you talking about!?  How in the world is Pirate Bay going to be killed easier than an encrypted network with more distribution??

And PirateBay actually agrees with me!! Check out this article on how they discussed adopting bitcoin like properties, because:

"This means that blocking IP addresses, which UK ISPs have been ordered to do by courts, won’t work, as there is no central IP address to block."

https://recombu.com/digital/article/pirate-bay-bitcoin-p2p-network_M12668.html  

Bitcoin is referred to again in the following article on:

How The Pirate Bay Plans to Beat Censorship for Good
https://torrentfreak.com/how-the-pirate-bay-plans-to-beat-censorship-for-good-140105/

You see kids, you reallly can identify trolls and shills by how much they bloviate  
 

you like the word "substance", huh?

You like getting paid to troll huh, and present baseless bearish statements in the guise of a bull?

Yes I like the word substance, because I won't let up.  I will keep asking for supporting information and substance for your retarded statements.

Tell me again, why do you think Bitcoin should be easier for the government to kill than The Pirate Bay?  Let's hear some SUBSTANCE

[/quote]

[jaredboice]

All it takes is one moderately sized country to accept bitcoin for another country's banning it to have little impact. That first country that accepts it outright would become a Bitcoin-Economy Power House.  File sharing is illegal too, dumbass.  So are drugs.  How do they stop people from file sharing?  Happens every day on an extremely large scale.  The joke is on government and their banks