And when these undesired answers do not allow us to dismiss such questions as insignificant, cognitive dissonance arises that spawns internal struggles about what to believe and what to reject. Merely telling someone of the truth, even if the truth has mountains of supporting evidence, or at times, even indisputable evidence, is often insufficient to convince someone committed to the contrary view, of the truth. Furthermore, often people that are unwilling to consider the truth, simply because the truth opposes their false beliefs, will dismiss an opposition point of view by providing an ad hominem attack rather that ever attempting to logically deconstruct an opposition view. For example, in 2009 and 2010 when I was relentless about my insistence that gold and silver prices were being spoofed and manipulated in New York futures markets, the mainstream opposition view just as relentlessly dismissed my views as the views of a "conspiracy theorist" and their ad hominem attack was accepted by most, simply because their views fit the consensus views of the masses. The journey to truth is most often not an easy one, and because of this, most are unwilling to take it. Given this undeniable reality that every intellectual must confront and answer during his or her journey to truth, I present to you "The Bitcoin Conundrum."

A financial conundrum often introduces massive cognitive dissonance when the best answer to a presented question is one that contradicts our beliefs. For example, ask a recent graduate from the MBA program (Wharton) of my alma mater whether he or she believes that the $200,000+ cost of his or her degree ($162,000 for two years of tuition plus room and board expenses) was worth the cost, and there is no one that just invested that amount of money in a two year academic degree that would answer "No". Yet, because I am so far removed from my Master degrees and my undergraduate education at UPenn, I can unequivocally state that none of my multiple academic degrees were remotely worthy of the tuition costs and that I later concluded all to be of extremely low utility in contributing to a better quality of life overall. Likewise, if you ask someone that is heavily invested in oil prices moving higher whether one's position is extremely vulnerable, even if crude prices rise to a hypothetical future price of $100 a barrel in the future, and explain that oil prices have always been extremely vulnerable to rapid price movements up and down because of manipulation in oil futures markets, the person/institution's vested interest in a continued rise in oil prices will likely elicit a negative response in contradiction to reality. Even if one provided such people with multiple real world past historical cases in which it is nearly indisputable that oil prices were severely manipulated, like the summer of 2008 Goldman Sachs executed oil price squeeze against oil hedge fund Semgroup that eventually bankrupted Semgroup, we all retain a massive propensity to dismiss truth even when indisputable facts stare us in the face.