BTC to 5000$ soon

[Farma]

I guess the target of $ 5000 it is very far from reality today. but if the $ 500 it will probably happen. behold, if the price of bitcoin slowly rose like today, bitcoin price could be $ 500 in March next

[Hyena]

I don't care about it that much, either - it's straying well into off-topic. However, you raised it. You - presumably - persist in your claim despite being shown evidence to the contrary. Disprove that evidence, or accept you made a mistake. Incidentally, here's Charles Herzfeld, ARPA's director at the time discussing why ARPANET was created, what the goals for it were - and weren't. But don't just take his word for it, Google is your friend.

The reason it matters is - you made an appeal to your legendary status. I'm of the opinion that, particularly where matters of money is concerned, accuracy is better than longevity. If you raise a topic it looks pretty shabby trying to deflect criticism by calling other participants "brats", dismissing them because you perceive them to be comparative newbies. Particularly when, in the same post, you repeat a common myth.

Well, for starters, I never said that the Internet was designed to persist during a nuclear war. So if you insist on clinging so dramatically to that part of my reply, then at least do it correctly. There's a huge difference between a nuclear war and a war in general. So what mistake could I have ever made? Just because you have wet dreams of me having made a mistake does not imply that I have actually made any. Wishful thinking busted. What is also laughable in your behaviour is the fact that you actually think that you can prove me wrong while in reality it is quite impossible. It just portrays you as a rhetoric dilettante.

You see, I made a wild prediction based on vague calculations that in their essence cannot ever be falsified. Trying to do so only shows the attempter's lack of wisdom. What is more, it is impossible to win an online debate, and since you seem to be rather serious in your business I can only guess that you're either an excellent troll such as myself or a typical idiot who still has a lot to learn. Either way, you have not contributed constructively to this topic. If all you wanted to say was that in your opinion the Internet was not to designed to survive a nuclear war then why didn't you just state that and leave the making of conclusions to every reader themselves?

It's of course good to know that some people perceive it as a misconception that the Internet was designed to survive nuclear wars but then I would ask --- did you invent the Internet? Since the answer is no, you have no way of knowing the full story around the conception of Internet. You just bark what fits your agenda and it is damn obvious that in this case your agenda is to sabotage this topic.

[LMGTFY]

I don't care about it that much, either - it's straying well into off-topic. However, you raised it. You - presumably - persist in your claim despite being shown evidence to the contrary. Disprove that evidence, or accept you made a mistake. Incidentally, here's Charles Herzfeld, ARPA's director at the time discussing why ARPANET was created, what the goals for it were - and weren't. But don't just take his word for it, Google is your friend.

The reason it matters is - you made an appeal to your legendary status. I'm of the opinion that, particularly where matters of money is concerned, accuracy is better than longevity. If you raise a topic it looks pretty shabby trying to deflect criticism by calling other participants "brats", dismissing them because you perceive them to be comparative newbies. Particularly when, in the same post, you repeat a common myth.

Well, for starters, I never said that the Internet was designed to persist during a nuclear war. So if you insist on clinging so dramatically to that part of my reply, then at least do it correctly. There's a huge difference between a nuclear war and a war in general. So what mistake could I have ever made? Just because you have wet dreams of me having made a mistake does not imply that I have actually made any. Wishful thinking busted. What is also laughable in your behaviour is the fact that you actually think that you can prove me wrong while in reality it is quite impossible. It just portrays you as a rhetoric dilettante.

You see, I made a wild prediction based on vague calculations that in their essence cannot ever be falsified. Trying to do so only shows the attempter's lack of wisdom. What is more, it is impossible to win an online debate, and since you seem to be rather serious in your business I can only guess that you're either an excellent troll such as myself or a typical idiot who still has a lot to learn. Either way, you have not contributed constructively to this topic. If all you wanted to say was that in your opinion the Internet was not to designed to survive a nuclear war then why didn't you just state that and leave the making of conclusions to every reader themselves?

It's of course good to know that some people perceive it as a misconception that the Internet was designed to survive nuclear wars but then I would ask --- did you invent the Internet? Since the answer is no, you have no way of knowing the full story around the conception of Internet. You just bark what fits your agenda and it is damn obvious that in this case your agenda is to sabotage this topic.

Meh, the Internet wasn't designed top persist during any sort of war - that simply wasn't a design goal. But yes, nuclear and non-nuclear wars are different. The mistake you made was to repeat a common myth. The mistake you now make is to refuse to believe that you could possibly have erred, in the face of evidence.

I know you made a wild prediction.

I can only cite the people who did invent the Internet, correct. "Barking what fits my agenda", I like that. The topic is ludicrous, it really doesn't need my help sabotaging it.

I'm not talkscheep, I'm not a bear troll. I've been in Bitcoin for a long time, I've been in it seriously since that Slashdot article, bought a GPU, started mining in earnest. I believed - and continue to believe - that there's a possibility that Bitcoin could be huge, many, many orders of magnitude bigger than present. I just don't think we'll convince people that that's possible if our analysis is sketchy hopium and we dismiss any criticism out of hand.

[Hyena]

Meh, the Internet wasn't designed top persist during any sort of war - that simply wasn't a design goal. But yes, nuclear and non-nuclear wars are different. The mistake you made was to repeat a common myth. The mistake you now make is to refuse to believe that you could possibly have erred, in the face of evidence.

I know you made a wild prediction.

I can only cite the people who did invent the Internet, correct. "Barking what fits my agenda", I like that. The topic is ludicrous, it really doesn't need my help sabotaging it.

I'm not talkscheep, I'm not a bear troll. I've been in Bitcoin for a long time, I've been in it seriously since that Slashdot article, bought a GPU, started mining in earnest. I believed - and continue to believe - that there's a possibility that Bitcoin could be huge, many, many orders of magnitude bigger than present. I just don't think we'll convince people that that's possible if our analysis is sketchy hopium and we dismiss any criticism out of hand.

I agree that it is common to believe that the Internet was created by the military so that it would persist during a war and in situations where nodes go offline. I also didn't know that such a claim is considered a misconception by some people. But then again, there are opponents to just about anything these days. Is it really a common misconception? I have no way of knowing nor do I care in the context of this topic. It's yet another of these things that cannot be proved nor disproved. Your evidence is not really evidence. And yes, I refuse to believe and no it is not a mistake. Why do you, for example, insist to believe in your referred sources? Don't you think it is human nature to come up with ideas that make other people seem wrong on the pursuit of academic fame, for example? It seems to apply to your misconception theory. But these same people, when confronted with ideas that threaten their description of the world, will do anything to defend it and while doing so they chant how much they think they like it when new science proves old science wrong, how ironic.

[LMGTFY]

Meh, the Internet wasn't designed top persist during any sort of war - that simply wasn't a design goal. But yes, nuclear and non-nuclear wars are different. The mistake you made was to repeat a common myth. The mistake you now make is to refuse to believe that you could possibly have erred, in the face of evidence.

I know you made a wild prediction.

I can only cite the people who did invent the Internet, correct. "Barking what fits my agenda", I like that. The topic is ludicrous, it really doesn't need my help sabotaging it.

I'm not talkscheep, I'm not a bear troll. I've been in Bitcoin for a long time, I've been in it seriously since that Slashdot article, bought a GPU, started mining in earnest. I believed - and continue to believe - that there's a possibility that Bitcoin could be huge, many, many orders of magnitude bigger than present. I just don't think we'll convince people that that's possible if our analysis is sketchy hopium and we dismiss any criticism out of hand.

I agree that it is common to believe that the Internet was created by the military so that it would persist during a war and in situations where nodes go offline. I also didn't know that such a claim is considered a misconception by some people. But then again, there are opponents to just about anything these days. Is it really a common misconception? I have no way of knowing nor do I care in the context of this topic. It's yet another of these things that cannot be proved nor disproved. Your evidence is not really evidence. And yes, I refuse to believe and no it is not a mistake. Why do you, for example, insist to believe in your referred sources? Don't you think it is human nature to come up with ideas that make other people seem wrong on the pursuit of academic fame, for example? It seems to apply to your misconception theory. But these same people, when confronted with ideas that threaten their description of the world, will do anything to defend it and while doing so they chant how much they think they like it when new science proves old science wrong, how ironic.

> Why do you, for example, insist to believe in your referred sources?

Occam's razor. What's likely to be the most likely explanation? That the guy who commissioned ARPANET would know why he commissioned ARPANET, or that some random on the Internet would know better?

That this can or can't be disproved is bollocks, and a cop-out: my statement is clearly falsifiable. If you don't believe that Charles Herzfeld commissioned ARPANET for the reasons he said - you should be able to construct a falsifiable premise of your own.

...and why on Earth would you say something if you didn't care whether it was true or not? Can we infer from your promotion of $5000 that a similar lack of care was involved?

[Hyena]

> Why do you, for example, insist to believe in your referred sources?

Occam's razor. What's likely to be the most likely explanation? That the guy who commissioned ARPANET would know why he commissioned ARPANET, or that some random on the Internet would know better?

That this can or can't be disproved is bollocks, and a cop-out: my statement is clearly falsifiable. If you don't believe that Charles Herzfeld commissioned ARPANET for the reasons he said - you should be able to construct a falsifiable premise of your own.

...and why on Earth would you say something if you didn't care whether it was true or not? Can we infer from your promotion of $5000 that a similar lack of care was involved?

I'm seriously getting bored of you. Not only you seem to know that there's a huge difference between a nuclear war and a war in general. You now don't seem to see a difference between reasons to commission something and reasons to actually do something. What are you trying to achieve here anyway? Make me admit that I didn't care to explain deeply enough my reasons to believe that 5k prices are bound to happen soon? Yes I admit it, I didn't care and you cannot make me care more because it is not about convincing the opponents to see the light but it is about seeing who the opponents are, how they think, what's their average intellect is and so on.

[Oscoda]

not now too early, i still see a minimum or new bottom below 1k, for this year or at least before the next bubble with a spike above 1k but not that max to reach 5k

don't make the mistake that bitcoin will grow only because right now it's very small, i'm not pessimist but there is not only one outcome for bitcoin, there are two, and the other is not a good one

No its not possible right now, the bitcoin itself is to low at the moment to get to such a high number if you ask me, I think the bitcoin itself is very good but the point is that the bitcoin is not even stable these days.
This year it will be highly unlikely that the bitcoin will go to a high amount even with the halving its not possible.

[enhu]

The problem with Opening post is that it is pure speculation, not really backed by real life events and paradigms. So what if gold market cap is xxx and bitcoin is xx?
These two commodities are not related in direct way whatsoever and while I (as probably everyone here on bitcointalk) agree that bitcoin price is underwhelming atm.
There is NO real evidence that we will reach $5000 anytime soon, and certainly not before 2020. (I wish I was wrong on this...)

You must be kidding me. Seriously? That's your reply?

"There is NO real evidence that we will reach $5000 anytime soon"  

"not really backed by real life events and paradigms"

You have to learn what the speculation subforum is in its essence, young padawan.

To be fair, many newbies seem to erroneously believe that a sub-forum on Bitcointalk called "speculation" would be for discussing speculating with BTC. Fortunately most of them soon realise that "speculation" has further definitions beyond the narrow world of finance.

For some reason they look these threads here in speculation as basis of whether they buy or sell. The rankings though can very much convince them. if for instance a legendary member will comment about a dump that is going to happen and a some of them are going to sell.

[LMGTFY]

> Why do you, for example, insist to believe in your referred sources?

Occam's razor. What's likely to be the most likely explanation? That the guy who commissioned ARPANET would know why he commissioned ARPANET, or that some random on the Internet would know better?

That this can or can't be disproved is bollocks, and a cop-out: my statement is clearly falsifiable. If you don't believe that Charles Herzfeld commissioned ARPANET for the reasons he said - you should be able to construct a falsifiable premise of your own.

...and why on Earth would you say something if you didn't care whether it was true or not? Can we infer from your promotion of $5000 that a similar lack of care was involved?

I'm seriously getting bored of you. Not only you seem to know that there's a huge difference between a nuclear war and a war in general. You now don't seem to see a difference between reasons to commission something and reasons to actually do something. What are you trying to achieve here anyway? Make me admit that I didn't care to explain deeply enough my reasons to believe that 5k prices are bound to happen soon? Yes I admit it, I didn't care and you cannot make me care more because it is not about convincing the opponents to see the light but it is about seeing who the opponents are, how they think, what's their average intellect is and so on.

Yes, as you state I do know that there's a huge difference between a nuclear war and a war in general (electro-magnetic pulses from nuclear explosions create havoc for electromagnetic communications - pretty much all modern communications). I'm not sure why you're trying to derail this down that way, it really doesn't matter which type of war it is - ARPANET was not designed with warfare-persistence as a design goal.

Thanks for your admission. I sometimes wish threads were tagged "no analysis or thought here!" - it would make life much easier.

[doublemore]

Bitcoin will probably never get to 5000 imo. We're not even close to 1% at all, and if that were to happen, people would dump the price down to oblivion. There will always be a guy who dumps his bitcoin and kills the price. Of course I could be completely wrong and end up with a few thousand dollars in a few years. Only time can tell.

When litecoin went to $5 the first ever time if anyone remembers there were several hundred K litecoin dumps on the way up past $3 - $4 but the price kept going.  In the end there was a second rally to $50 also.  Once the demand for bitcoin starts the next bubble will be huge, nobody really has enough bitcoin to dump imo because there really isn't that much of it around.

[OrangeII]

I think the bitcoin price will go to $1000 soon this year, but $5000? It might be reached in 3 year's time.

Well if the price of $ 1000 it will probably happen this year, I agree with you. but I guess bitcoin prices will not rise as easy as it within 3 years. bitcoin price might be $ 5,000 during the next 10 years, it is the fastest. I write like that because in 2010 until now, bitcoin prices plummeted, once the price was worth $ 1,000, and now it costs less than half

[Hyena]

Yes, as you state I do know that there's a huge difference between a nuclear war and a war in general (electro-magnetic pulses from nuclear explosions create havoc for electromagnetic communications - pretty much all modern communications). I'm not sure why you're trying to derail this down that way, it really doesn't matter which type of war it is - ARPANET was not designed with warfare-persistence as a design goal.

Thanks for your admission. I sometimes wish threads were tagged "no analysis or thought here!" - it would make life much easier.

And don't get kicked in the butt by the door on your way out.  

But seriously though, it doesn't take a genius to understand that if military creates something for their own use it is automatically meant to withstand war. It's so obvious that they don't even put it into the reports. And to make matters worse for you, it is outright trivial that a decentralized network of any kind is versatile at times of war. You're just trying to be a smartass by citing offtopic in a hostile way while you could as well as do it without the obvious stench of a saboteur all over the place.

By the way, the Internet is vulnerable to EMPs for the same reason the power grid is vulnerable --- because the civilian infrastructure hasn't been built in way that it would be resistant to electromagnetic pulses. When it comes to that, the Internet is the least of your worries. You will be without power, for months. If that's your argument then it's an outright doomsday argument that should be discarded even faster than a wild claim for 5k prices in the near term future. What crazy theory is next in your back pocket? That bitcoin wouldn't survive a zombie apocalypse? Come on, man, by now you just have to see your fallacy, it's so big and red and in your face.

[LMGTFY]

Yes, as you state I do know that there's a huge difference between a nuclear war and a war in general (electro-magnetic pulses from nuclear explosions create havoc for electromagnetic communications - pretty much all modern communications). I'm not sure why you're trying to derail this down that way, it really doesn't matter which type of war it is - ARPANET was not designed with warfare-persistence as a design goal.

Thanks for your admission. I sometimes wish threads were tagged "no analysis or thought here!" - it would make life much easier.

And don't get kicked in the butt by the door on your way out.  

But seriously though, it doesn't take a genius to understand that if military creates something for their own use it is automatically meant to withstand war. It's so obvious that they don't even put it into the reports. And to make matters worse for you, it is outright trivial that a decentralized network of any kind is versatile at times of war. You're just trying to be a smartass by citing offtopic in a hostile way while you could as well as do it without the obvious stench of a saboteur all over the place.

By the way, the Internet is vulnerable to EMPs for the same reason the power grid is vulnerable --- because the civilian infrastructure hasn't been built in way that it would be resistant to electromagnetic pulses. When it comes to that, the Internet is the least of your worries. You will be without power, for months. If that's your argument then it's an outright doomsday argument that should be discarded even faster than a wild claim for 5k prices in the near term future. What crazy theory is next in your back pocket? That bitcoin wouldn't survive a zombie apocalypse? Come on, man, by now you just have to see your fallacy, it's so big and red and in your face.

I won't, don't worry. Though I have to admit I don't have a come back to your last paragraph - partly because I have little idea what you're saying or why it's relevant, but mostly because it's got nothing to do with my argument.

My argument, you will recall, is that the Internet was not designed with warfare-persistence as a design goal. It had specific design goals, of which warfare-persistence was not one. Charles Herzfeld has stated what the design goals were. All of this is falsifiable: you could disprove Charles Herzfeld, for example, by finding a collaborator prepared to spill the beans.

Your argument currently appears to be "military project implies warfare-persistence" Well, it's possible that the Seabees - the US Navy's "Construction Battalion" - had warfare-persistence as a design goal when they were repairing roads and bridges in the wake of Hurricane Georges. I guess warfare-persistence was certainly a goal when the Pentagon was first built - I don't believe anyone thinks it's a realistic goal for some modern military buildings, but perhaps the administrative buildings are all civilian-designed? Perhaps. The military design things to blow up, they design temporary things, they design things that won't ever be near any battlefield - they design things for all sorts of reasons. Incredibly, they aren't just in the business of waging and surviving war.

I keep coming back to this, but I guess it's the crux of the issue - why would you say something and not care whether it was true or not? Why would you post something on a public forum and then try and deflect any criticism? There's a great discussion to be had around BTC and gold and stores of value, but you seem hostile to any real discussion beyond the usual cheerleading.

[Hyena]

I won't, don't worry. Though I have to admit I don't have a come back to your last paragraph - partly because I have little idea what you're saying or why it's relevant, but mostly because it's got nothing to do with my argument.

Perhaps you wish to present me with some evidence that clearly shows that I was worrying? 

My argument, you will recall, is that the Internet was not designed with warfare-persistence as a design goal. It had specific design goals, of which warfare-persistence was not one. Charles Herzfeld has stated what the design goals were. All of this is falsifiable: you could disprove Charles Herzfeld, for example, by finding a collaborator prepared to spill the beans.

How can you know? You didn't design the Internet. Neither did the commissioner. You should be intelligent enough to understand that what is written on the paper is a whole different story from what is really going on, especially when it comes to spending the taxpayers' money.

Your argument currently appears to be "military project implies warfare-persistence" Well, it's possible that the Seabees - the US Navy's "Construction Battalion" - had warfare-persistence as a design goal when they were repairing roads and bridges in the wake of Hurricane Georges. I guess warfare-persistence was certainly a goal when the Pentagon was first built - I don't believe anyone thinks it's a realistic goal for some modern military buildings, but perhaps the administrative buildings are all civilian-designed? Perhaps. The military design things to blow up, they design temporary things, they design things that won't ever be near any battlefield - they design things for all sorts of reasons. Incredibly, they aren't just in the business of waging and surviving war.

That truly is incredible. How do you know that?

I keep coming back to this, but I guess it's the crux of the issue - why would you say something and not care whether it was true or not? Why would you post something on a public forum and then try and deflect any criticism? There's a great discussion to be had around BTC and gold and stores of value, but you seem hostile to any real discussion beyond the usual cheerleading.

Because I demand my readers to have a certain degree of base knowledge. I'm not into babysitting oblivious sheeple, I let them disagree with me while secretly laughing into my paw. The time is ripe for the end of the current financial parasitism all over the world. It's make it or break it year for the Illuminati. The demand for physical gold is a clear indicator that something big has started to happen, there's no place for argument here because these are all pure facts. The global shipping is said to have ceased. The Worldwide Economy is Grinding to a Halt. The migrant crisis, tensions regarding Turkey, Russia and Saudi Arabia. 2016 being the Jubilee year, gold and silver soar and markets crash. The Death of Economic Recovery in 2016 by Peter Schiff. I don't have to even mention that BTC block halving will soon take place. Also the US presidential elections and for fuck sake, there's a limited amount of physical gold and silver and other conventional stores of value. But there are a lot of cryptocurrencies that can now be put in test for the first time in the history during a global financial crisis. Remember why Satoshi invented Bitcoin? It was exactly for the situation that is currently unfolding. Hell, they are attempting to ban CASH. You have to be a totally delusional moronic sheep living under a rock to dismiss all these issues and I even didn't go into the QE and interest rates. For fuck sake, if you don't understand these basics there is nothing I've got to tell you.

[LMGTFY]

I won't, don't worry. Though I have to admit I don't have a come back to your last paragraph - partly because I have little idea what you're saying or why it's relevant, but mostly because it's got nothing to do with my argument.

Perhaps you wish to present me with some evidence that clearly shows that I was worrying? 

My argument, you will recall, is that the Internet was not designed with warfare-persistence as a design goal. It had specific design goals, of which warfare-persistence was not one. Charles Herzfeld has stated what the design goals were. All of this is falsifiable: you could disprove Charles Herzfeld, for example, by finding a collaborator prepared to spill the beans.

How can you know? You didn't design the Internet. Neither did the commissioner. You should be intelligent enough to understand that what is written on the paper is a whole different story from what is really going on, especially when it comes to spending the taxpayers' money.

Your argument currently appears to be "military project implies warfare-persistence" Well, it's possible that the Seabees - the US Navy's "Construction Battalion" - had warfare-persistence as a design goal when they were repairing roads and bridges in the wake of Hurricane Georges. I guess warfare-persistence was certainly a goal when the Pentagon was first built - I don't believe anyone thinks it's a realistic goal for some modern military buildings, but perhaps the administrative buildings are all civilian-designed? Perhaps. The military design things to blow up, they design temporary things, they design things that won't ever be near any battlefield - they design things for all sorts of reasons. Incredibly, they aren't just in the business of waging and surviving war.

That truly is incredible. How do you know that?

I keep coming back to this, but I guess it's the crux of the issue - why would you say something and not care whether it was true or not? Why would you post something on a public forum and then try and deflect any criticism? There's a great discussion to be had around BTC and gold and stores of value, but you seem hostile to any real discussion beyond the usual cheerleading.

Because I demand my readers to have a certain degree of base knowledge. I'm not into babysitting oblivious sheeple, I let them disagree with me while secretly laughing into my paw. The time is ripe for the end of the current financial parasitism all over the world. It's make it or break it year for the Illuminati. The demand for physical gold is a clear indicator that something big has started to happen, there's no place for argument here because these are all pure facts. The global shipping is said to have ceased. The Worldwide Economy is Grinding to a Halt. The migrant crisis, tensions regarding Turkey, Russia and Saudi Arabia. 2016 being the Jubilee year, gold and silver soar and markets crash. The Death of Economic Recovery in 2016 by Peter Schiff. I don't have to even mention that BTC block halving will soon take place. Also the US presidential elections and for fuck sake, there's a limited amount of physical gold and silver and other conventional stores of value. But there are a lot of cryptocurrencies that can now be put in test for the first time in the history during a global financial crisis. Remember why Satoshi invented Bitcoin? It was exactly for the situation that is currently unfolding. Hell, they are attempting to ban CASH. You have to be a totally delusional moronic sheep living under a rock to dismiss all these issues and I even didn't go into the QE and interest rates. For fuck sake, if you don't understand these basics there is nothing I've got to tell you.

Ah, that last paragraph helped explain much of the "how can you know?" drivel. I can safely say I don't start with "your readers'" base knowledge (I mean, I'm familiar with much of it, but I wouldn't say I have <ahem> knowledge). Well, good luck battling the Illuminati.

As to how I know that the military design things that aren't intended to display warfare-persistence - well, partly common sense, seeing what army engineers build in civilian settings, watching disaster-relief operations in a few places, and having a military (naval) parent who designed things that were not intended to persist but rather to cease to exist, very rapidly.

[Hyena]

Ah, that last paragraph helped explain much of the "how can you know?" drivel. I can safely say I don't start with "your readers'" base knowledge (I mean, I'm familiar with much of it, but I wouldn't say I have <ahem> knowledge). Well, good luck battling the Illuminati.

As to how I know that the military design things that aren't intended to display warfare-persistence - well, partly common sense, seeing what army engineers build in civilian settings, watching disaster-relief operations in a few places, and having a military (naval) parent who designed things that were not intended to persist but rather to cease to exist, very rapidly.

Ah, that last paragraph helped explain much of the "how can you know?" drivel.

It's called expectation bias and you're full of it, which is sad. I mean  I'm sorry for your childhood dramas but comparing the Internet to a civilian setting is even more ridiculous than battling the Illuminati (which is by the way not what I am doing anyway, so again, expectation bias much on your side).

[LMGTFY]

Ah, that last paragraph helped explain much of the "how can you know?" drivel. I can safely say I don't start with "your readers'" base knowledge (I mean, I'm familiar with much of it, but I wouldn't say I have <ahem> knowledge). Well, good luck battling the Illuminati.

As to how I know that the military design things that aren't intended to display warfare-persistence - well, partly common sense, seeing what army engineers build in civilian settings, watching disaster-relief operations in a few places, and having a military (naval) parent who designed things that were not intended to persist but rather to cease to exist, very rapidly.

Ah, that last paragraph helped explain much of the "how can you know?" drivel.

It's called expectation bias and you're full of it, which is sad. I mean  I'm sorry for your childhood dramas but comparing the Internet to a civilian setting is even more ridiculous than battling the Illuminati (which is by the way not what I am doing anyway, so again, expectation bias much on your side).

How, exactly, am I "comparing the Internet with a civilian setting"? I listed numerous examples of the military designing things without warfare-persistence as a design goal - bridges in relief operations, administrative buildings in cities, limpet-mines. And "comparing the Internet with a civilian setting" was what you took from that? Honestly, I'm struggling to see how - or why - you would do that unless you were trying to deflect attention away from the issue at hand. Now, what was it about that response to your argument you actually take issue? (And, for bonus points, how might it be affected by your presumption of childhood trauma?)

[Hyena]

How, exactly, am I "comparing the Internet with a civilian setting"? I listed numerous examples of the military designing things without warfare-persistence as a design goal - bridges in relief operations, administrative buildings in cities, limpet-mines. And "comparing the Internet with a civilian setting" was what you took from that? Honestly, I'm struggling to see how - or why - you would do that unless you were trying to deflect attention away from the issue at hand. Now, what was it about that response to your argument you actually take issue? (And, for bonus points, how might it be affected by your presumption of childhood trauma?)

I'm getting doubts that you even know what the Internet is and how it works. If that's the case, I'm out. Seriously, you seem to know what an EMP is yet you fail to grasp that the Internet in its concept is not vulnerable to the EMPs at all. The power grid is vulnerable because the energy business is the only business that is not regulated. Typically regulation would require basic defence of the critical infrastructure against natural disasters but it's not the case with the power stations (at least not in the US). If the connections between nodes were properly shielded there would be no threat to the Internet from even a nuclear explosion.

[LMGTFY]

I'm getting doubts that you even know what the Internet is and how it works. If that's the case, I'm out. Seriously, you seem to know what an EMP is yet you fail to grasp that the Internet in its concept is not vulnerable to the EMPs at all. The power grid is vulnerable because the energy business is the only business that is not regulated. Typically regulation would require basic defence of the critical infrastructure against natural disasters but it's not the case with the power stations (at least not in the US). If the connections between nodes were properly shielded there would be no threat to the Internet from even a nuclear explosion.

That's because you keep making strange-ass assumptions. If you focus on  what I'm saying, and not what you think I'm saying - or would like me to be saying - you should do better. Now, what was it about my non-warfare-persistence examples list response to your argument that you actually take issue with?

[lister storm]

well sooner or later it will surely reach such a big price in my opinion, we just have to wait with patience and hope for the best, that the price will rise to the new heights as soon as possible