Sure, let's talk in a few months time. I've been hearing how it's literally going to 0 because it has no intrinsic value and how it's going to burst any moment now for 10+ years and it just keeps growing, it keeps getting more widespread and more institutionally recognized. Bitcoin fud sounds awfully similar to the climate change doom and gloom - any time now for the past 50 years.
I never sell and till buy the dips because even at 100k it's peanuts for the actual value of bitcoin in the near future when scarcity settles in and very few people worldwide would own 1 BTC or more. No other asset, including real estate and gold (and I have both) can match it.
the Bitcoin crash
Crash? Do you know what a pattern is? Have you noticed that historically, bitcoin's volatility follows a cycle of bull and bear markets and each "crash" sets a new bottom that's twice as high as the previous one, creating an upward trend over time? How come that people who buy to hold and believe bitcoin is sound money are still way ahead even after the "crash"?
You're so desperate to shit on bitcoin while Jeff Epstein literally explained to you how the real ponzi scheme is ran by the central banks and fractional reserve banking. Most MSM "expert" shills and boomers are against bitcoin btw. I wonder why.
Both of you are right and population control has uses many strategies.
Baal is well served.
It never really tanks though - it follows a cycle of bull/bear markers and an overall upward trend in market cap. Sure, some people treat bitcoin for trading and shorting, but many treat it as what it's supposed to be - a store of value and the future of decentralized money.
Serious bitcoin holders don't use online wallets ran by the exchanges. As for tether, it has nothing to do with bitcoin.
Exchanges don't control the price. It's the whales that are responsible for volatility. But at the core, the price of bitcoin is determined by the value of the network and the technology itself.
Statistically, institutional control of bitcoin is less than 10%. This is the only alternative.
Nations are ran by the cabal, that was my point. Lies have been exposed, Epstein files are the biggest revelation in history probably. A lot of people know what's going on and don't trust the UN, WEF, EU, Israel and the elites. They don't care because the people are powerless and are entranced.
The thing is that the system is funded and ran through the central banks (BIS, Fed, IMF, EU Bank, Bank of England and their associates) and not through the governments. The governments are downstream to the banks, not vice versa. Here's how it looks:
| ----> think-thanks, foundations and NGOs (CFR, Trilateral, WEF, USAID, Bilderberg)
| ----> national governments and agencies
Banks | ----> supranational governmental organizations (UN, EU, NATO, WHO)
| ----> fortune 500 international corporations
| ----> media and showbiz
| ----> academia
This is why I always say that unless the financial system is decentralized, there is no escape. And still many conspiratards refuse to understand that BTC is the only viable alternative to that system (also the gold standard, but gold is held by the banksters). We literally live under debt slavery beast system and they still bitch about BTC being the CBDC (which it is the opposite of by definition).
Lol, how do you go about defunding supranational organizations that are run and funded by the elite cabal who print their own money and influence very government in the world?
It is an adoption of middle platonic and neoplatonic philosophy together with the Gnosticism of early Christianity in what is called emanation theories.
My point exactly.
Good info on the distinction between Kabbalah and neo-platonism.
There were Christians who became involved in the evolution of Kabbalah Pico della Mirandola is a prominent one. Johann Reuchlin is another one.
They were probably crypto-jews. Obviously one can't be a Christian and a Kabbalist at the same time. But at this point the effects of the schism were at full force and Western theology was already ridiculous and anti-christian.
Kabbalah is gnostic in nature as it claims to have hidden knowledge about the world, that's accessed through initiation and gnosis. Jewish mysticism is influenced by neoplatonism and hermeticism.
Yes, that's what Kabbalah, hermeticism, alchemy and neo-platonism is about - unification of opposites through the purifying process of dialectics (thesis - antithesis - synthesis). This is what alchemists called the Great Work.
Keeping that in mind everything you see the elites promoting today makes sense:
-
open borders, one world government, communism and egalitarism
-
transhumanism, evolutionism, troons and skittles movements, feminism
-
conformism, collectivism, consoomerism
-
promotion of new age and eastern religions that seek ego death, transcendence of illusory distinctions and dissolution in the One, relativism, sim theory, magical thinking, pantheism, perenialism and ecumenism (all religions are the same thing and should be united)
This is the key. Jeffrey was a Kabbalist.
Here's a 2min proof of free will's existence.
Your loss. Don't say you weren't told in a couple of years.
Sure. There are lots of scams in crypto. I mean remember HawTuah coin?
Bitcoin is built different.
You believe what you believe and there is no need for evidence.
Strawman. I definitely can justify my belief and bring evidence for my worldview without appealing to God or divine revelation. Also I can easily turn that against you or anyone else because no one has a neutral position. Everyone's worldview is based on presuppositions about reality (metaphysics, epistemology and ethics). What you consider evidence is not neutral too but is determined by said presuppositions.
But I have no problems answering your hypotheticals. Ask me straight and I will answer straight. All you do is complain I didn't answer something 5 comments ago - well ask again then. I think I did answer but maybe I missed something. You definitely didn't answer my hypothetical though, but I don't mind because the only reason I gave it to you is to demonstrate why your line of argumentation (asking why God did this and not that) is not adequate internal critique. It misses the central claim that everything God does is good and has purpose, even if we don't understand or know it.
The software is open source, so it's basically like Linux. If you don't have access to electricity or the internet in the future, you wouldn't need any money to begin with. You'd need provisions and guns. Sure, in end-of-times scenario I admit BTC, just like any other currency, won't be much good.
Good, you ruled out the RC Church which is a pdf satanic cabal. That leaves out the other major apostolic Church, which is the Eastern Orthodox.
Maybe you're correct and they all demons. That's why I asked you, how did you come to that knowledge and how did you verify it?
So, why does Chad deal with much more temptation in his life than the incel?
Dude... Talk about avoiding hypotheticals. You literally answered with a question.
The point was to demonstrate that giving a choice between doing what's right and what's wrong allows for virtue to be exhibited. If God made the world so that no such choice was possible it would lead to a less virtuous world.
Was that system all put into place so God can test beings despite already knowing what each is going to do?
God doesn't do stuff out of lack or necessity - He has all the knowledge and all that he needed before the creation. On the contrary - He did it out of abundance of love. Everything He does is for the good of the creation. The "tests" He put are for the betterment of man, so that man can transcend his nature and become like Him.
But my hypotheticals were nuanced and in multiple directions. If what you posit is correct, why aren't things harder? Why can't we insist upon our will and break the laws of physics, surely that would be a better way to test a person's virtue or lack thereof, to go back to your own example, make everyone a universal gigachad and see what they do.
I answered. It's just that there's no pleasing you because asking "but why are things that way and not another way" is sophistry and childlike questions. This can go on literally forever. Here, I'll try too: Why did God made me so I have to breathe to live when he could've made me not go through the trouble of breathing? Or why can't I grow wings right now just by thinking about it?
The thing is I offered explanations as to why God did things a certain way, but it doesn't matter much. What matters is that He did it that way for a reason. It doesn't have to make sense to us and ultimately it can't because we're limited in our knowledge and reason and can't comprehend the purpose and function of all things. We know what has been revealed by Him and what our senses and reason can tell us but that leaves a lot of unknowns.
You CONTINUE to simplify and avoid the difficult questions, as well as avoiding providing proof of previous claims such as science showing us animals were originally designed to function better without death.
Wtf are you on about? When did I say that science showed us animals were originally designed to function better without death? When did you hear me appealing to science when talking about something that's supernatural and can't be empirically observed?
How do you know all this secret knowledge and how did you confirm it's not made up? Why do you trust the gnostic account (as if there's a single one) and not the Church?
In other words you're asking "Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?". If you're a follower of Paul's teachings you should get your answer from his response to that question. But if you're not content to believe Paul I suggest that minds should be punished for making choices that could cause harm. We should also stop machines that cause more harm than good, even destroying them if there is a risk of them being used again. We even refer to machines, plans and processes as bad or evil despite them not having any mind or free will.
I already told you your interpretation of Paul is wrong and that's not what the Church that he was an apostle to understood from his words. Christianity makes no sense under determinism (choosing the good over the sin and being judged accordingly).
It's bad because child abuse and murder are bad things that we want to minimize. And he's guilty because he did bad things and is a depraved person. It doesn't matter why he is (pre-determined or not), the fact is that he is and that justifies punishment.
"It's bad because it's bad and we don't want it" is a circle. I asked you on what objective grounds is he bad if all actions are predetermined. It just so happens that his output is being a pdf assassin. Your output is to believe that's morally wrong. Why is your output the normative one that is more true than his?
Maybe because they weren't comfortable with what it actually says. It was and still is common for uncomfortable teachings to be ignored or reinterpreted.
Come on, dude. You have zero knowledge on the subject. Do you know what apostolic succession is (as described in Acts and Epistles)? And if they weren't comfortable with what Paul was saying, don't you think they may have edited the text itself or simply not include it in the Bible canon? Also, you didn't come to this belief yourself but you were determined to believe this...
That sounds comforting, but unfortunately that's the very opposite of what the passage says. It's explained very plainly in black and white across all different translations and I don't have to be taught by a Calvinist to understand what it clearly says.
Correct, but you inherit he calvinist and protestant presuppositions when understanding the text and the Bible as a whole. You believe you can quote mine and latch on to one passage that aligns with your view and ignore hundreds of other passages that point to free will. I've noticed protestants love doing this (like the famous "call no man your father"). It's very low-tier reading out of context.
You mean a non-deterministic evaluation. We still make deterministic evaluations and choices under determinism. But even if we didn't make any evaluations or choices and we just had beliefs planted into our minds I don't see how that makes them not beliefs or not justified (justification meaning there are other things known which prove that the belief is true).
Yes, but you have no way of knowing which of those planted beliefs are true. All you know is there's a belief A and a belief B, but they are on equal grounds (equally planted) and you can't determine which one is the true one. This is why I said determinism makes knowledge impossible.
Yet a computer can tell which one is true, so your reasoning here is wrong.
And who programmed the computer to tell you that? Is it perhaps another human calculator? So what the computer tells you is another determined output. You can't escape the system-level problems of determinism. Again, at no point do you have an evaluator that can look at outputs and determine (determination assumes choice btw) which one is true and which one is false.
And your point is that therefore the mind isn't important? That's like saying the difference between a rock and a super-intelligent computer isn't important. Only worse because minds are immaterial and have subjective experiences while computers do not.
My point is that under determinism, the mind is in the same category as any other mechanism, yes. The correct comparison would be brain-computer (material), mind-software (virtual). There are no meaningful distinctions there except maybe you can say the brain-mind is more complex than the computer-software we have now.
Everything will fail eventually. But it will outlive the fiat pedodollar, I can bet on that.
You give me the address, I go to my wallet software and choose send and sign it with my hard wallet (which is like a usb). The transaction is broadcasted to the bitcoin network. You receive the amount.
If you have access to internet, you can access the network and send BTC. They will either have to stop the network or internet access.
Wait, I'm pretty sure I answered here:
If God were to intervene and modify man to not be capable of sinning, that would not only make him a tyrant, but would negate the possibility of man to reach true virtue which is only achieved through struggle with the passions and transcending the worldly.
What good is for God a being that can't freely choose to love Him and be with Him? Such a being is no better than a dumb beast that's only loyal because of instinct or a machine that's been programmed to emulate love.
Here's a real life example: Who do you think is more virtuous: a chad who has easy access to many attractive women and still doesn't give in to lust but marries and remains faithful to his wife or an incel who never had any options and does the same things without getting tempted?
I mean, I'm pretty sure you know the answer and you're just being stubborn. The answer to your hypothetical is easy - God wants to test us and see if we're worthy. This is why life is hard, why we have moral culpability (what kind of a God would judge a man who has been determined to sin and not repent?) and why we're not on autopilot mode (determinism).
Exactly. Also they play dumb pretending as if gold cannot be taken from the people by the government when this is exactly what happened in the 30's. This would be so much harder (I'd say impossible) to do with bitcoin. And who do they think holds all the gold mining operations around the globe? Who holds 20% of the gold reserves in existence? It's the jew banksters of course.
Bitcoin has an edge over gold as a currency in every aspect possible. That doesn't mean bitcoin has a greater material value - of course it doesn't because it's just digital squiggly lines on a public network and gold is a shiny precious metal with intrinsic value outside of it being used as money. They can't make the distinction between currency and raw material.
Most conspiratards are economically illiterate and are bound to wageslave their lives away. What's the point of knowing all this stuff about how the system really works and collecting all the folders if you're still enslaved by it? Notice this is not due to lack of info or anything - it's just arrogance and doubling down out of pride. I was a huge bitcoin skeptic too, but I eventually looked more into it, took the L and admitted I was wrong. Humility is greatly rewarded and I'm not just speaking about material wealth.